Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01073/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01073-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE HOWARD KEEL, II ,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES TILTON,

Respondent.

 /

1: 06 CV 01073 AWI WMW HC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXPAND

EXHIBIT LIST AND MODIFY RECORD

[Doc. 13]

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND

PETITION

[Doc. 21]

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND

PETITION

[Doc. 30]

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2254. On April 12, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to expand the exhibit list

and modify the record to include the decision by the California Supreme Court denying his petition

for review. Good cause appearing, Petitioner’s motion is HEREBY GRANTED.

On September 21, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to amend his petition. In his

motion, Petitioner apparently seeks to have the court consider the claim recently exhausted by the

California Supreme Court’s denial of his petition for review. Although Respondent argued in his

Case 1:06-cv-01073-AWI-JMD Document 34 Filed 01/23/08 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

answer that the claim of prosecutorial misconduct had been procedurally defaulted, Respondent also

addressed this claim on the merits. The court will also address this claim when it resolves the

petition. Thus to the extent that Petitioner seeks to have this claim addressed, his motion to amend is

GRANTED. Petitioner also makes reference to unspecified “properly exhausted collateral claims

overlooked in Respondent’s Answer to the Petition,” and claims that it would be “appropriate” for

the court to allow him to amend his petition to include those claims. The court has already explained

to Petitioner that Respondent had no obligation to address claims other than those raised in the

petition. Petitioner having provided no explanation as to why these claims were not included in the

original petition and the case having been fully briefed, the motion to amend is HEREBY DENIED. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to RETURN to Petitioner the proposed amended petition lodged

with the court [Doc. 22].

On December 4, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to amend his petition to add a claim pursuant

to Cunningham v. California, 127 S.Ct. 856 (2007). Cunningham was decided after Petitioner filed

the present petition, and Petitioner provides no indication that he has exhausted his state judicial

remedies as to any claim under Cunningham. It appears, therefore, that any amendment to add a

claim pursuant to Cunningham would be futile. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request to amend the

petition to include such a claim is HEREBY DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return

to Petitioner the proposed second amended petition lodged with the court [Doc. 33].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01073-AWI-JMD Document 34 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 2