Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01784/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01784-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN VALDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01784 AWI MJS (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION

TO AMEND PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 39)

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On November 1, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Pet., 

ECF No. 1.) On January 31, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion to amend along with a first 

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF Nos. 19, 30.) The Court granted the 

motion to amend, and Respondent filed an answer to the petition on March 5, 2013. 

(Answer, ECF No. 24.) On February 10, 2015, the Court issued findings and a 

recommendation to deny the first amended petition. (ECF No. 38.) 

A week later on February 17, 2015, the Court received a motion to amend the 

petition for writ of habeas corpus, along with a copy of a second amended petition. The 

motion was dated on February 2, 2015, prior to the issuance of the findings and 

Case 1:12-cv-01784-AWI-MJS Document 49 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1 of 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

2

recommendation to deny the first amended petition.

In the second amended petition, Petitioner includes two new claims, claims 9 and 

10. In claim 9, Petitioner contends that the trial court violated his due process rights by 

allowing the prosecution to present false testimony at trial. In claim 10, Petitioner claims 

that his right to a fair trial was violated due to the presentation of an excessive amount of 

testimony regarding Petitioner's past criminal and gang related conduct. 

Respondent argues that claim 9 of the amended petition is untimely and does not 

benefit from relation back to the filing of the original petition under Fed. Rule Civ. P. 

15(c). Respondent also contends that claim 10 is identical to claim 1 of the operative 

petition, and that amendment of that claim would be futile. (O'ppn, ECF No. 42.) 

Petitioner, in his reply, agrees that claim 9 is untimely, and does not relate back. (Reply, 

ECF No. 45.) Petitioner argues that claim 10 only contains the same "core of operative 

facts" as claim 1, making relate back under Rule 15(c) proper, and that since the 

arguments are not identical as those previously presented, amendment should be 

allowed. 

Based on Petitioner's admission that claim 9 is untimely, amendment as to that 

claim would be futile. The motion to amend with respect to claim 9 is therefore denied.

Comparing claim 1 of the first amended petition with newly presented claim 10, 

the Court finds them quite similar, if not identical. Respondent's answer to the petition

and the Court's findings and recommendations, as previously prepared, would remain 

unchanged even if the proposed amendments were allowed. When reviewing state court 

judgments by way of a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus under AEDPA, the Court 

may only look to see whether the state court's ruling on the federal claims was 

unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Based on this limited scope of review, the 

Court's determination of the claim would remain unchanged despite the rephrasing of 

Petitioner's arguments in his second amended petition. 

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-01784-AWI-MJS Document 49 Filed 09/14/15 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, the Court finds that amendment would be futile such that justice does 

not so require amendment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 

Motion to Amend be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01784-AWI-MJS Document 49 Filed 09/14/15 Page 3 of 3