Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00493/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00493-0/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

---

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

PHILIP JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

RAFAEL ZUNIGA,

Respondent.

No. 1:15-cv-00493-SKO HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO AMEND REPLY

(Doc. 17)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

1

 On July 31, 2015, Petitioner submitted his reply to Respondent’s 

answer, and the Court took the petition under submission. Petitioner now moves to amend his 

reply and append an exhibit concerning the availability of typewriter ribbons at the Federal 

Correctional Center Mendota (“FCI Mendota”), where Petitioner is incarcerated.

Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 

does not provide for amendments to responses or replies (traverses). To the extent that the 

provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not inconsistent with the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, they may be applied to this proceeding. 

 

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.

Case 1:15-cv-00493-SKO Document 18 Filed 02/02/16 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

Rule 12, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 

A party may amend a pleading as a matter of course within 21 days after service of the 

pleading. F.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(A). Because Petitioner’s reply was filed July 31, 2015, the period 

in which he could amend as a matter of course expired August 21, 2015. 

In all other instances, a party may amend only with the consent of the opposing party or 

leave of court. F.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice requires.” 

Id. Here, the proposed amendment is not substantive. It consists of Petitioner’s attempt to edit 

the document to make it “more focused and concise,” and to add an exhibit supporting 

Petitioner’s contention that typewriter ribbons are not contraband in FCI Mendota. Just 

resolution of Petitioner’s petition will not be affected by denying the motion to amend the reply.

The motion to amend the reply is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00493-SKO Document 18 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 2