Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01122/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01122-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY RAMONA MEDINA, Civil No. 06cv1122-IEG (WMc)

Petitioner,

1) ORDER ALLOWING PETITIONER

TO AMEND PETITION 

2) ORDER TO RESPONDENT TO FILE

A RESPONSE

vs.

M.S. EVANS, Warden, et al.

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has requested to amend his petition for a

writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The request is GRANTED. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides in pertinent part that after a responsive

pleading is filed, "a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written

consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." The

strong federal policy favoring the disposition of cases on the merits and permitting amendment

with "extreme liberality," DCD Programs Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1986),

is balanced against four factors: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing

party, and (4) futility of amendment, see United States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co.,

63 F.3d 1512, 1527 (9th Cir. 1995); Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.

1996).

Petitioner seeks to challenge the constitutionality of his sentence in light of the recent

Supreme Court case of Cunningham v. California, 127 S.Ct. 856 (2007). Cunningham has held

certain aspects of California’s determinate sentencing law unconstitutional. Therefore, the Court

Case 3:06-cv-01122-JLS-WMC Document 24 Filed 06/25/07 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-

finds that Petitioner is not seeking leave to amend in bad faith or to cause undue delay.

Therefore based upon foregoing the Court issues the following Order:

1. Petitioner’s Supplement to Petitioner’s Traverse in Support of Writ of Habeas Corpus

(“Supplement”) previously received but not filed with the Court shall be filed. The Supplement

together with Petitioner’s original petition shall be construed as Petitioner’s First Amended

Petition. 

2. On or before July 27, 2007, Respondent shall file a response. Respondent need not

reply to the entire Petition anew but may limit its response to the “Supplement.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 25, 2007

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Copies to: ALL PARITES

Case 3:06-cv-01122-JLS-WMC Document 24 Filed 06/25/07 Page 2 of 2