Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06032/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06032-1/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

HENRY JOSEPH CASTILLO,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM DUNCAN, Acting Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 04-6032 OWW DLB HC

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 29, 2004. 

Respondent filed an answer to the petition on November 24, 2004, and Petitioner filed a traverse

on January 6, 2005. On October 6, 2005, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations

recommending that the petition be denied on the merits. On October 7, 2005, an amended

petition was submitted to this Court, which is lodged, not filed. 

A petitioner may amend a petition for writ of habeas corpus once “as a matter of course,”

and without leave of Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(a), as applied to habeas corpus actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242 and Rule 11 of

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Calderon v. United States District Court (Thomas),

144 F.3d 618, 620 (9th Cir. 1998); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9 Cir. 1995). Leave th

of Court is required for all other amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). While the Court should freely

Case 1:04-cv-06032-OWW -DLB Document 19 Filed 10/18/05 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 Petitioner is advised, as previously stated herein, Findings and Recommendations were issued on October 1

6, 2005, and objections are due within thirty days from the date of service. 

2

give leave to amend if justice requires, the Court may deny leave to amend if the amendment

would be futile or subject to dismissal. Bonn, 59 F.3d at 845; Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d

829, 843 (9 Cir. 1991). th

Petitioner did not seek and was not granted permission to file an amended petition. The

Court cannot ascertain the purpose for the amendment as Petitioner merely submitted an

amended petition, without a formal motion requesting leave to amend and/or supplement. 

Further, Petitioner does not indicate, and it is unclear, whether he seeks to file the instant petition

as an amended petition or as a supplement to the original petition. Accordingly, the Court can

not grant Petitioner’s request to amend or supplement the petition and the petition will be

returned to Petitioner. 

1

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to return the amended petition for writ of habeas

corpus, lodged on October 7,2 005, to Petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 17, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06032-OWW -DLB Document 19 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 2