Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02531/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02531-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

cal 

1 06cv2531

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Ben Alan Snipes,

Petitioner,

v.

James E. Tilton, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.06cv2531 LAB(AJB)

Order Denying Motion to Supplement

[Doc. No. 45] 

Petitioner has filed a Motion to Supplement, however, this ‘motion’ does not seek to supplement,

but rather requests that the Court conduct a search for an amended petition he states was filed with the

Court on November 1, 2007. The Court refers Petitioner to this Court’s Order of February 26, 2008,

which instructed the Petitioner to file an amended petition that sets forth all of the facts upon which the

claims in the Petition rely. This does not mean that the Petitioner should continue to file motion after

motion to supplement, rather it is directing the Petitioner to amend his petition to include all of the

relevant facts and necessary support for the claims contained therein, without the excessive references to 

‘exhibits’ or other documents previously submitted or attached to prior petitions.

Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases states that the petition must “specify all grounds

for relief available to the petitioner [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. §

Case 3:06-cv-02531-LAB-AJB Document 46 Filed 02/28/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 Cf. Burkey v. Deeds, 824 F. Supp. 190, 193 (D. Nev. 1993) (finding that courts do not have

entire onus of creating a federal claim for petitioner).

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\HABEAS\Snipes\06cv2531.Snipes.Order.Deny.Mot.2.Supp.2.26.08.wpd 2 06cv2531

2254; see also Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 2058 (9th Cir. 1970). While courts should liberally

interpret pro se pleadings with leniency and understanding, this should not place upon the reviewing

court the entire onus of ferreting out grounds for relief.1

 In order to satisfy Rule 2(c), facts must be

stated in the petition with sufficient detail to enable the court to determine, from the face of the petition,

whether further habeas corpus review is warranted. Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir.

1990).

All deadlines set by the Court in its February 26, 2008 Order remain as set, with the Petitioner

being required to file motion to amend the Petition and a Second Amended Petition in compliance with

Rule 2(c) on or before March 24, 2008. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 27, 2008

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-02531-LAB-AJB Document 46 Filed 02/28/08 Page 2 of 2