Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02218/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02218-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRANCE LAMONT VARNER,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVE DAVEY, Warden,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

No. C-14-2218 EMC (pr)

ORDER RE PETITIONER’S MOTION

TO AMEND

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he asserted eight claims for

relief. The Court dismissed one claim because it was for a state law error, and ordered Respondent

to respond to the other claims. Respondent filed an answer earlier this month.

Petitioner has filed a motion to amend his petition for writ of habeas corpus, but has not

submitted a proposed amended petition, has not explained why he wants to amend his petition, and

has not identified what (if any) claims he wants to add. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)

provides that leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires but the court cannot

make that determination without seeing the proposed new pleading. See Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d

360, 374 (3d Cir. 2000) (“Obviously, without this draft complaint, the District Court cannot evaluate

the merits of a plaintiff's request . . . [T]he court had nothing upon which to exercise its discretion.”) 

The motion to amend is DENIED for failure to attach a proposed amended petition. Docket # 20. 

This denial is without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new motion to amend that is accompanied by a

proposed amended petition. Any motion to amend also must explain whether Petitioner exhausted

his state court remedies (i.e., presented the claim in a petition to the California Supreme Court) for

any new claim in that proposed amended petition. Further, any motion to amend must explain why

Case 3:14-cv-02218-EMC Document 26 Filed 03/03/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 waited until this late date to present any new claims. If Petitioner merely wants to add

more argument about the claims that were included in the original petition, the place to do so is in

his traverse rather than in an amended petition. 

The Court will wait until April 10, 2015 for Petitioner to file a motion to amend or a

traverse, and thereafter will rule on the matter as it then stands. In other words, if Petitioner files a

motion to amend, the Court will rule on that motion; if Petitioner files a traverse, the Court will

assume no amended petition will be filed and will adjudicate the merits of the petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02218-EMC Document 26 Filed 03/03/15 Page 2 of 2