Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02659/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02659-2/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

16-cv-2659-MMA-AGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Irwin GUZMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

Warden SPEARMAN,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16-cv-2659-MMA-AGS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO GRANT PETITIONER’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND 

(ECF No. 31)

Petitioner Irwin Guzman moves to amend his habeas petition to add a new claim. 

This request is unopposed, and the Court recommends that it be granted.

BACKGROUND

On October 26, 2016, Guzman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. In Ground Six of that petition, which is at issue here, Guzman challenged 

his conviction and sentence by referring to outside-the-record pleadings, stating: “Joinder 

in Co-Appellant’s petition for review by this Court. Guzman hereby joins in all arguments 

raised by the co-appellants that may accrue to his benefit.” (ECF. No. 1, at 14.) On July 13, 

2017, this Court criticized that claim for failing to identify whose arguments Guzman was 

attempting to join, among other problems. (ECF No. 22, at 2-3.) Perhaps in response to that 

criticism, Guzman moved to amend his petition to join in particular individuals’ specified 

arguments in state proceedings, including an argument challenging the due process effects 

of an alleged jury instruction defect. (ECF No. 31, at 1.) After ordering a response, 

Case 3:16-cv-02659-MMA-AGS Document 36 Filed 11/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-cv-2659-MMA-AGS

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

respondent concluded that such a claim appears to be both timely and fully exhausted and 

does not object to the amendment. (ECF No. 34, at 4-7.)

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 controls a request to amend a § 2254 petition. 

See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005). Rule 15(a)(2) instructs that leave to amend 

requires court permission in these circumstances, but cautions that such permission should 

be given “freely . . . when justice so requires.” The factors that may justify denying a 

motion to amend are undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, futility of amendment, 

undue prejudice to the opposing party, and whether petitioner has previously amended. 

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The Court construes the pending motion as a 

request to clarify the existing Ground Six. All of the Foman factors favor allowing the 

amendment.

This is Guzman’s first request to amend, respondent did not identify any prejudice,

and there is no suggestion of bad faith or dilatory motive. Although there has been some 

delay in Guzman’s identification of the basis for Ground Six, he moved diligently as soon 

as this Court questioned the basis for that ground. Finally, although the current Ground Six 

does arguably include all of the grounds Guzman wishes to add by amendment, this 

amendment will clarify the exact issues and will make Ground Six easier both to respond 

to and to adjudicate. Accordingly, it is not futile.

For those reasons, this Court recommends that:

1. Guzman’s motion to amend (ECF No. 31) be GRANTED;

2. Guzman be directed to file an amended petition within 30 days of the Court’s 

adoption (or modification) of this report and recommendation; 

3. Guzman be instructed to include in his amended petition only the original six 

claims, with the sixth modified with the relevant language in his motion to 

amend; and

Case 3:16-cv-02659-MMA-AGS Document 36 Filed 11/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-cv-2659-MMA-AGS

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. the respondent be given 30 days from the date of the amended petition to file its 

brief—as the state court records have already been filed—and Guzman be given 

30 days from that date to file his reply brief. 

Upon being served with a copy of this report, the parties have 14 days to file any 

objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Upon being served with any objections, the party 

receiving such objections has 14 days to file any response. See id.

Dated: November 1, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02659-MMA-AGS Document 36 Filed 11/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3