Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01225/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01225-1/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

 A motion to dismiss is currently due on or before April 17, 2006, and an answer to the petition is due on

or before May 17, 2006. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLTON HILLMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

K. MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1225 REC SMS HC

ORDER VACATING COURT’S FEBRUARY

16, 2006, ORDER TO RESPOND TO THE

PETITION AND GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO AMEND PETITION

[Docs. 3,4]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition on September 28, 2005. On February 16, 2006, the

Court directed Respondent to submit a response to the petition.1 

On March 14, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to amend the petition. Petitioner indicates

that he has exhausted a new claim which he seeks to amend in the current action. 

Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a petitioner may amend a

petition for writ of habeas corpus once “as a matter of course,” and without leave of Court,

before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), as applied to

habeas corpus actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases. Calderon v. United States District Court (Thomas), 144 F.3d 618, 620 (9th Cir.

Case 1:05-cv-01225-LJO -SMS Document 5 Filed 03/20/06 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

 Because Petitioner is seeking to amend the petition, the Court will vacate the pending order directing

Respondent to submit a response to the petition. 

2

1998); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Although a responsive pleading has been ordered in this case, it is not yet due and has not

been filed in this case.2 Therefore, Petitioner may amend the petition, at this time. However,

Petitioner is advised that he may not attempt to amend the petition piecemeal. An amended

pleading must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 15-220;

Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). As such, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court

to send Petitioner a blank § 2254 form, and grant Petitioner the opportunity to amend the petition

with the additional claim, without reference to the prior petition. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court’s February 16, 2006, order directing a response to the petition is

VACATED; 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank § 2254 form petition; 

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall

submit an amended petition; and

4. No response to the amended petition shall be due, unless and until directed by the

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01225-LJO -SMS Document 5 Filed 03/20/06 Page 2 of 2