Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01210/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01210-4/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis 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 

to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry 

of final judgment, by manifesting their consent in writings signed 

by the parties or their representatives and filed by Petitioner on 

MARVIN JOHNSON,

 Petitioner,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01210-SKO-HC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART PETITIONER’S MOTIONS TO 

AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT THE TRAVERSE 

(DOCS. 20, 22)

ORDER DECLINING TO CONSIDER ANY NEW 

CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE TRAVERSE 

(DOC. 19)

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT THIRTY 

(30) DAYS TO FILE A REPLY TO 

PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTED TRAVERSE

ORDER DEFERRING CONSIDERATION OF 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING UNTIL THE COURT 

CONSIDERS THE MERITS OF THE 

PETITION (DOC. 26)

Case 1:12-cv-01210-SKO Document 30 Filed 01/22/14 Page 1 of 7
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

August 2, 2012, and on behalf of Respondent on December 4, 2012. 

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motions, filed on July 15, 

2013, and September 11, 2013, to amend the traverse that he 

previously filed on February 19, 2013. Petitioner also requests an 

evidentiary hearing.

I. Amendment of the Traverse

Petitioner seeks to supplement his traverse, which raised new 

claims. Respondent argues that the amendments that Petitioner seeks 

would be futile because the claims are barred by the statute of 

limitations. 

A. Legal Standards 

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus may be amended or 

supplemented as provided in the rules of procedure applicable to 

civil actions to the extent that the civil rules are not 

inconsistent with any statutory provisions or the rules governing 

section 2254 cases. 28 U.S.C. ' 2242; Rule 12 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 

(Habeas Rules). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) may be used to permit the 

petitioner to amend the petition. Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 

680, 696 n.7 (1993). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that a party 

may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-one 

days after service of the pleading, a required responsive pleading, 

or a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier; in 

all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the 

opposing party=s written consent or the Court=s leave. Further, the 

Court should freely give leave when justice so requires.

Factors to be considered when ruling on a motion to amend a 

habeas corpus petition include bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to 

Case 1:12-cv-01210-SKO Document 30 Filed 01/22/14 Page 2 of 7
3

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

the opposing party, futility of the amendment, and whether or not 

the party has previously amended his pleadings. Bonin v. Calderon, 

59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Amendment may be disallowed if 

the amendment would be futile, such as where the amended matter is 

duplicative or patently frivolous, or where the pleading presents no 

new facts but only new theories and provides no satisfactory 

explanation for failure to fully develop the contentions originally. 

Ibid. 

An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the 

original pleading when 1) the law that provides the applicable 

statute of limitations allows relation back, 2) the amendment 

asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, 

transaction, or occurrence set out, or attempted to be set out, in 

the original pleading, or 3) the amendment changes the party or 

naming of a party under specified circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(c)(1). In a habeas corpus case, the Aoriginal pleading@ referred 

to in Rule 15 is the petition. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. at 655. A 

habeas petition differs from a complaint in an ordinary civil case, 

however. In ordinary civil cases, notice pleading is sufficient; 

however, Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a habeas petition not simply 

meet the general standard of notice pleading, but rather specify all 

the grounds for relief available to the petitioner and state the 

facts supporting each ground. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. at 655.

Relation back is appropriate in habeas cases where the original 

and amended petitions state claims that are tied to a common core of 

operative facts. Mayle, 545 U.S. at 664. The claims added by 

amendment must arise from the same core facts as the timely filed 

claims and must depend upon events not separate in Aboth time and 

Case 1:12-cv-01210-SKO Document 30 Filed 01/22/14 Page 3 of 7
4

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

type@ from the originally raised episodes. Mayle, 545 U.S. at 657. 

Thus, the terms Aconduct, transaction, or occurrence@ in Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 15(c)(1)(B) are not interpreted so broadly that it is sufficient 

that a claim first asserted in an amended petition simply stems from 

the same trial, conviction, or sentence that was the subject of a 

claim in an original petition. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 656-57. In 

Mayle, the Court concluded that the petitioner=s pretrial statements, 

which were the subject of an amended petition, were separated in 

time and type from a witness=s videotaped statements, which occurred 

at a different time and place and were the basis of a claim in the 

original petition. Thus, relation back was not appropriate. Mayle, 

545 U.S. at 657, 659-60.

B. Analysis

In the petition, Petitioner raised the following claims: 1) 

Petitioner’s right to the effective assistance of counsel was 

violated by appellate counsel’s failure to raise trial counsel’s 

failure to bring a motion to suppress evidence of drug possession, 

obtain an evidentiary hearing, and adequately challenge an allegedly 

false factual basis for the search as well as the entry and search 

of petitioner’s motel room; 2) the evidence was insufficient to 

support a finding that Petitioner violated sections 186.22(a) and 

186.22(b) of the California Penal Code, and thus Petitioner suffered 

a violation of due process of law. (Pet., doc. 1, 4-19.)

In his traverse filed on February 19, 2013, Petitioner raised

claims not raised in the petition: 1) trial counsel was ineffective 

for failing to advise him of the repercussions of refusing to 

testify at his suppression hearing; 2) trial counsel was ineffective 

for failing to call a gang expert at trial; 3) trial counsel was 

Case 1:12-cv-01210-SKO Document 30 Filed 01/22/14 Page 4 of 7
5

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

ineffective for failing to interview the manager or staff at the 

hotel where he was apprehended and by failing to take pictures of 

the hotel room window; and 4) Petitioner’s right to discharge or 

substitute court appointed counsel was violated. (Doc. 19, 7-9.)

In the motions to amend his traverse and the motion for an 

evidentiary hearing, Petitioner addresses or submits exhibits that 

relate to the following claims: 1) trial counsel’s failure to 

investigate before trial (doc. 20, 1, 12); 2) trial counsel’s

failure to confer and communicate adequately with Petitioner (id. at 

12); 3) trial counsel’s failure to subpoena and present necessary 

witnesses and failure to present an adequate defense (id. at 13); 

4) trial counsel’s rendering substandard assistance with respect to 

motions (id.); 5) trial counsel’s failure to declare a conflict with 

Petitioner (id.); 6) trial counsel’s closing argument, the testimony 

supporting the gang participation, and trial counsel’s knowledge 

regarding the illegality of the search and seizure (doc. 22); and 

7) trial counsel’s ineffectiveness with respect to the motion to 

suppress evidence (doc. 26, 2). The exhibits may be at best only 

tangentially pertinent to the claims actually raised in the 

petition. 

It is improper to raise substantively new issues or claims in a 

traverse, and a court may decline to consider such matters. 

Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994), cert.

den., 514 U.S. 1026 (1995). To raise new issues, a petitioner must 

obtain leave to file an amended petition or additional statement of 

grounds. (Id.) Petitioner has not sought to amend his petition to 

raise new claims. Further, in his reply to Respondent’s opposition 

to the motions, Petitioner states that he does not intend to raise 

Case 1:12-cv-01210-SKO Document 30 Filed 01/22/14 Page 5 of 7
6

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

new claims; rather, just to submit exhibits that support his 

original claims. (Doc. 29, 1.) 

The Court thus declines to consider Petitioner’s traverse as 

raising any new claims, and to the extent that it might be read to 

do so, the Court exercises its discretion to DECLINE to consider any 

new claims. The only claims before the Court are the claims set 

forth in the original petition. 

The additional exhibits set forth in the motions are in large 

part only indirectly pertinent to the claims that were raised in the 

petition. However, the Court has not yet considered the merits of 

the petition. At this point in the Court’s review, Petitioner’s 

additional exhibits may be considered in relation to the claims 

raised in the petition provided they were in the record before the 

California Supreme Court when that court considered Petitioner’s 

claims. Any materials not presented to the California Supreme Court 

may not be added to the record at this point in the proceedings. 

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motions to supplement the 

traverse are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

II. Time for Respondent to Reply

Respondent is GRANTED thirty (30) days in which to file a reply 

to the supplemented traverse. 

III. Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing

In view of the nature of Petitioner’s claims, consideration and

determination of Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing is

DEFERRED until the Court considers the merits of the petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01210-SKO Document 30 Filed 01/22/14 Page 6 of 7
7

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

Case 1:12-cv-01210-SKO Document 30 Filed 01/22/14 Page 7 of 7