Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01152/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01152-3/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

PAUL CRAIG COURTOIS,

Petitioner,

v.

C.D.C., et al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-1152 OWW SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO ADMIT POLYGRAPH TESTING,

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EVIDENCE,

AND MOTION TO AMEND

[Docs. 5, 6, 7]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 5, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion to admit polygraph and drug testing,

motion for leave of court to file evidence, and motion to amend the petition. 

In his motion to admit the polygraph and drug testing, Petitioner indicates that he wishes

to admit polygraph testing examinations to demonstrate that the witnesses are lying. In his

motion for leave of court to file evidence, Petitioner merely states that the Court may subpoena

evidence at a later stage of the case. In his motion for leave to amend, Petitioner indicates that he

has had limited access to the law library. 

As the Court has yet to review the merits of Petitioner’s claim, it cannot determine the

relevancy of the evidence of which Petitioner wishes to submit. Further, Petitioner is advised he

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

Case 1:05-cv-01152-OWW -SMS Document 13 Filed 02/17/06 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

2

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 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions filed

October 5, 2005, are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01152-OWW -SMS Document 13 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 2