Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05203/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05203-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMA L. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

D. ADAMS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 04-5203 DLB HC

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO

AMENDED PETITION 

[Doc.

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to

the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 30, 2004. By

order of March 17, 2004, the Court directed Respondent to submit a response to the petition. 

Prior to the filing of Respondent’s response, Petitioner submitted an amended petition on April 9,

2004, and pursuant to Federal Rules 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the amended

petition was filed. By order of April 19, 2004, the Court vacated its March 17, 2004, order

directing Respondent to file a response and re-ordered a response to the amended petition. 

Respondent filed an answer on July 28, 2004, and Petitioner filed a traverse on August 23, 2004. 

In the original petition, Petitioner raised the single claim that the trial court’s abused its

discretion by failing to strike one or two of Petitioner’s prior convictions. However, in the

amended petition, Petitioner raised the following four claims for relief: 1) the trial court abused

Case 1:04-cv-05203-DLB Document 17 Filed 07/08/05 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

 The Court notes for the record that its order of April 19, 2004, directed that a copy of the amended

petition be served on Respondent and such service was effected. (Court Doc. 8.) 

2

its discretion by failing to strike one of Petitioner’s two prior strike convictions; 2) ineffective

assistance of trial counsel; 3) invalid plea agreement; and 4) breach of plea agreement. 

In reviewing Respondent’s response filed July 28, 2004, Respondent only addressed

Petitioner’s first claim for relief. There is no discussion or mention of the other three claims for

relief raised in the amended petition. It appears that Respondent inadvertently responded to the

original petition and not the amended petition.1 Accordingly, the Court will direct Respondent to

submit a supplemental response addressing the additional claims raised in the amended petition. 

The Court will grant Petitioner the opportunity to file a supplemental traverse.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order, Respondent shall

submit a supplemental response to the claims raised in the amended petition; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date Respondent files its answer, Petitioner may

file a traverse; and

3. All provisions set forth in the court’s April 19, 2004, order to file a response

remain in full force and effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05203-DLB Document 17 Filed 07/08/05 Page 2 of 2