Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00704/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00704-4/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

15-CV-704-BEN-WVG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EBRAHIM MUSSA MOHAMED,

Petitioner,

v.

CYNTHIA TAMPKINS, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 15-CV-704-BEN-WVG

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

TRAVERSE

[ECF No. 38]

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 27, 2016, Respondent Cynthia Tampkins timely filed an Answer to 

Petitioner Ebrahim Mussa Mohamed’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 34.) 

Petitioner timely filed his Traverse on September 12, 2016. (ECF No. 36.) On September 

23, 2016, Petitioner filed the present Motion to Amend his Traverse. (ECF No. 38.)

In his Motion to Amend, Petitioner requests leave to file an amended traverse for the 

purposes of responding to Respondent’s argument regarding a certificate of appeal. (Id. at 

1-2.) Petitioner claims he should be able to amend for good cause. (Id. at 3-4.) Petitioner 

did not explain in any detail what good cause he had for making the Motion to Amend.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party may amend the party’s pleading 

once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a 

Case 3:15-cv-00704-WQH-WVG Document 39 Filed 12/20/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

15-CV-704-BEN-WVG

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

party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and 

leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The Supreme Court 

has instructed lower courts to heed the language of Rule15(a) to grant leave freely when 

justice requires. Valley v. Automated Systems of America, Inc., 2012 WL 113753, at *1 

(S.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); citing Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 

1973). Because Rule 15(a) mandates that leave to amend should be freely given when 

justice so requires, the rule is to be interpreted with “extreme liberality.” Id; citing United 

States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). Further, leave to amend should be 

granted more liberally to pro se litigants. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 861 (9th 

Cir. 2003); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 (“We have noted frequently that the ‘rule 

favoring liberality in amendments to pleadings is particularly important for the pro se 

litigant. Presumably unskilled in the law, the pro se litigant is far more prone to making 

errors in pleading than the person who benefits from the representation of counsel.’”) 

(internal citations omitted).

III. RULING

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed his Motion to Amend only eleven days after filing 

his Traverse. Further, Petitioner only seeks to address a small portion of his Traverse; the 

legal standard of a certificate of appeal. Although Petitioner provides no reason for not 

including the information in his Traverse, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to 

Amend his Traverse. Petitioner shall file an Amended Traverse on or before January 20, 

2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-00704-WQH-WVG Document 39 Filed 12/20/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2