Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01037/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01037-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEOVARDO SALCEDA,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN F. SALAZAR, WARDEN,

Respondent.

Case No. 08cv1037 IEG (PCL)

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S AMENDED

MOTION TO AMEND AND

SUPPLEMENT ORIGINAL

PLEADING

(Doc. No. 33)

AMENDED MOTION TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT ORIGINAL PLEADING

Petitioner Leovardo Salceda (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a conviction following a jury trial in

San Diego Superior Court on October 3, 1995. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner now moves the Court

for leave to amend his Petition a second time to add additional claims and arguments in support

of his original claims. (Doc. No. 33.) For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s Motion to

Amend his Petition is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

Rule 15(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part that a

party “may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s

leave” and that the court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” In ruling on a

motion to amend under Rule 15(a), a court weighs the following factors: bad faith, undue delay,

prejudice to the opposing party, whether the amendment would be futile, and whether the party

has previously amended his or her pleadings. See Western Shoshone Nat’l Council v. Molini,

951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir. 1991).

Case 3:08-cv-01037-IEG-PCL Document 44 Filed 08/14/09 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

08 CV 1037 IEG (PCL)

2

Petitioner wishes to amend the current Petition to add facts and arguments to his current

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. No. 1.) Of the six “claims” Petitioner sets forth in his

Motion to Amend the Original Pleading, three claims are applicable only to his prior robbery

case from 1989; two have already been raised in the current Petition; and the last one is a

reiteration of the basic argument for all Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus: that the state court

rendered its opinion in his state habeas case based on an unreasonable determination of the facts

of his case. (Doc. No. 33.) The court finds no recently exhausted claims or relevant claims not

included in the original Petition present in this pleading, thereby rendering amendment futile to

Petitioner’s claim. Moreover, although the Court finds no evidence of bad faith or undue delay

on the part of petitioner, the Court notes Petitioner has already amended his Petition once to add

two additional claims. (See Doc. No. 18.) 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Petitioner’s Amended Motion to Amend and

Supplement Original Pleading is DENIED. 

DATE: August 13, 2009 

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

cc: The Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez

All Parties and Counsel of Record

Case 3:08-cv-01037-IEG-PCL Document 44 Filed 08/14/09 Page 2 of 2