Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01546/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01546-5/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

ANTHONY LAWS,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01546-BAM HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S 

MOTION TO AMEND

(Doc. 31) 

Petitioner, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254,1 moves to amend his petition to incorporate two additional grounds for relief. Respondent 

opposes amendment, arguing that since one of the two proposed grounds is unexhausted, the Court 

would be required to dismiss the mixed amended petition, rendering amendment futile. 

1. Procedural Background

On September 25, 2013, Petitioner filed in this Court a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition set forth a single claim: 

Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel on appeal in violation of 

his right to counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as his 

rights to due process and equal protection under the Federal Constitution and his 

appellate rights under "Anders,"[

2

] when his appellate counsel failed to raise any 

appealable issues, and specifically claims concerning a) trial counsel's ineffective 

assistance in failing to present confidential medical evidence in connection with 

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), both parties consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Case 1:13-cv-01546-SKO Document 39 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 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

2

Petitioner's effort to withdraw his plea, b) the trial court's abuse of discretion in 

denying the motion to withdraw the plea, c) the involuntary, unintelligent, and 

unknowing entry of the illegal plea based on inadequate advice from trial counsel,

d) the petitioner's being under the influence of prescribed psychotropic 

medications at the time of entry of the plea in violation of the plea agreement, and 

e) the entry of the plea agreement under a misapprehension of law based on the 

advice of trial counsel because the perpetrator of the robbery was never identified, 

and Petitioner did not understand that the identification should have been 

challenged and the prosecutor should have been required to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that Petitioner participated in the crime.

Doc. 5 at 5-6.

Following its screening of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 

Cases in the United States District Courts, on October 3, 2013, the Court determined that the ground 

set forth in the petition was exhausted only as to subparts a, b, c, and d, but that subpart e, which was 

then pending before the California Supreme Court, had not yet been exhausted. The Court ordered 

Petitioner to dismiss the unexhausted subpart within thirty days or be subject to dismissal of the 

entire mixed petition. On October 21, 2013, Petitioner withdrew unexhausted subpart 1(e). The 

Court granted the motion to withdraw on January 3, 2014, ordered the petition amended to 

incorporate certain supplemental information, and ordered Respondent to file his response.

Respondent answered the petition on May 14, 2014; Petitioner filed his reply (traverse) on 

May 27, 2014. On December 15, 2014, Petitioner moved for leave to amend the petition to add two 

new grounds:

Ground Two: Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate whether 

trial counsel for Petitioner was ineffective for failing to investigate that the 

investigating officer in his case falsified statement[]s in Petitioner's crime report 

from Petitioner that Petitioner never made [f]alsifying his crime report and 

committing perjury. And that Petitioner was misadvised to plead without being 

informed of this information before pleading, failing to explain the nature of the 

negotiated plea and the merits of entering the plea in light of the evidence and 

[a]pplicable law in the case[,] violating his 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment rights to 

the United States Constitution, due process, [a]ppellate rights, and equal 

protection under the Federal constitution. And that the state court's denial of this 

claim was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts, and unreasonable 

an [sic], an[d] contrary to United States Supreme Court case law.

///

Case 1:13-cv-01546-SKO Document 39 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 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

3

Ground [Three]: Counsel on appeal was ineffective for failing to address that 

"Petitioner" entered his no-contest plea under a misapprehension of law in 

Appellant's opening brief after conferring with counsel on the issue to be raised, 

and the Petitioner's former attorney misadvised Petitioner to plead without being 

informed of this information before pleading [, f]ailing to explain the nature of the 

negotiated plea in light of the evidence and [a]pplicable law in the case violating 

his[] 6th and 14th Amendment rights to the United States Constitution, due 

process, [a]ppellate rights, and equal protection under the Federal constitution. 

And that the state court's denial of this claim was based on an unreasonable 

determination of the facts an unreasonable, [sic] and contrary to United States 

Supreme Court case law.

Doc. 31 at 1-2.

2. Standards for Amendment

Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 15(a), a party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 

21 days after service of the pleading, a required responsive pleading, or a motion under F.R.Civ.P. 

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. 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rule 12 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts. In ruling on a motion to amend a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus, a court must consider bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing 

party, futility of amendment, and whether or not the party has previously amended his pleadings. 

Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). A court may disallow a proposed amendment 

that would be futile, such as one in which the amended matter (1) is duplicative or patently frivolous, 

(2) presents no new facts but only new theories, or (3) provides no satisfactory explanation for 

failure to develop the original contentions fully. Id.

Petitioner concedes that he has not exhausted the proposed Ground Two but claims that 

Ground Three simply restates his original Ground 1(e), which was exhausted following the Supreme 

Court's determination of the state petition that was pending when Petitioner filed the original petition 

in this case. Respondent opposes the proposed amendment, arguing that since Petitioner has not 

exhausted the proposed Ground Two, permitting the amendment would result in a mixed petition. 

Case 1:13-cv-01546-SKO Document 39 Filed 08/24/15 Page 3 of 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

4

3. Failure to Exhaust State Remedies

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The 

exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial 

opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 

U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 

1163 (9th Cir. 1988).

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with 

a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Duncan v. 

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 

F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full 

and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the 

claim's factual and legal basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365; Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 8 

(1992). If any of grounds for collateral relief set forth in a petition for habeas corpus are 

unexhausted (a "mixed petition"), the Court must dismiss the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); Rose, 

455 U.S. at 521-22.

Respondent contends that the Court must deny the motion to amend the petition since 

permitting the requested amendment would be result a mixed petition. Because § 2254 requires the 

Court to dismiss a mixed petition, the amendment would be futile. The Court agrees that, in light of 

the unexhausted claims in Ground Two, the requested amendment must be denied as futile.

4. Conclusion

Because Petitioner has not fully exhausted the claims that he moves to add to the petition 

through amendment, the Court hereby DENIES, without prejudice, Petitioner's motion to amend. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS:

1. Within 21 days of the date of this order, Petitioner may elect to (a) withdraw 

Case 1:13-cv-01546-SKO Document 39 Filed 08/24/15 Page 4 of 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

5

proposed Ground Two and move to amend the petition solely to incorporate proposed

Ground Three, or (b) move for an order of stay and abeyance to permit Petitioner to 

attempt to exhaust proposed Ground Two in state court. 

2. If Petitioner moves to amend the petition to reinstate Ground Three, the language 

used in Ground Three in the federal petition shall match the language used for that 

claim in the petition presented to the California Supreme Court.

3. If Petitioner fails to file either motion within the 21-day period, the Court will 

take the original petition under submission in consideration of the briefing and 

documentation that the parties have previously filed with this Court (See Docs. 1, 11, 

22, 24, and 25).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01546-SKO Document 39 Filed 08/24/15 Page 5 of 5