Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00684/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00684-10/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT BENYAMINI,

Petitioner,

v.

TERESA SCHULTZ,

Respondent.

 /

1:05-CV-0684 OWW LJO HC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

[Doc. #33]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL IN FOR

PETITIONER

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE

AMENDED PETITION

[Doc. #33]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72-302.

On April 18, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United

States District Court for the Central District of California. By order of the Court dated May 4,

2005, the action was transferred to the Fresno Division. In his petition, Petitioner raised five

grounds for relief: 1) Petitioner claims he was mentally incompetent at time of trial and was

denied the right to testify on his own behalf; 2) Petitioner claims the evidence was insufficient to

support the verdict; 3) Petitioner claims the reporter’s transcripts are incomplete; 4) Petitioner

claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and 5) Petitioner claims a juror was biased

Case 1:05-cv-00684-LJO -GSA Document 35 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 3
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

against him because of the juror’s relationship with Petitioner’s relative.

On July 15, 2005, the Court issued a Findings and Recommendation that recommended

Ground One be DISMISSED in part for failure to state a cognizable federal claim, Ground Three

be DISMISSED in whole for failure to state a cognizable federal claim, and the petition for writ

of habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies with

respect to Grounds One, Three, Four and Five. On October 19, 2005, the District Court adopted

the Findings and Recommendation. Grounds One and Three were dismissed; however, the Court

reserved judgment with respect to Grounds Four and Five because Petitioner had not provided

the Court with his state court records.

On October 27, 2005, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to submit a

response to the petition. On April 20, 2006, Counsel for Petitioner, Christopher J. Cannon, filed a

motion for substitution of counsel along with a declaration in support of the motion. Mr. Cannon

also filed a motion to supplement the petition. However, Mr. Cannon did not provide a signed

declaration from Petitioner stating that he consented to the substitution. Accordingly, the Court

denied the motions with leave to renew.

On June 12, 2006, Mr. Cannon renewed the motions.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Substitute Counsel

According to his declaration, Christopher J. Cannon, Esq., of Sugarman and Cannon has

been retained by Petitioner to represent him in this action. Counsel requests that the Court grant

his motion to substitute in as counsel of record. Counsel has submitted a Substitution of Counsel

which contains a declaration by Petitioner under penalty of perjury requesting the Court to allow

Mr. Cannon to substitute in as counsel. 

Accordingly, the motion to substitute is GRANTED. 

III. Motion to Supplement Petition

Counsel also requested leave to supplement the petition. He states that there are several

grounds which Petitioner has fully exhausted in state court and were either dismissed by the

Court or not included by Petitioner. Counsel contends that these are not frivolous claims and

Case 1:05-cv-00684-LJO -GSA Document 35 Filed 06/13/06 Page 2 of 3
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

1Although Counsel for Petitioner requests 120 days time to proceed with this case and “either report to the

Court” or “file a supplemental habeas petition,” the Court does not find good cause for such a lengthy extension.

Although Counsel argues that the limitations period does not expire until November of this year, this case has been

pending in this Court for over a year. In addition, as Counsel for Petitioner states, the additional claims such as

“competency to stand trial, the competency of [Petitioner’s] counsel at trial and on appeal, the absence of both

[Petitioner] and his counsel from a hearing prior to sentencing, and the prosecution’s failure to disclose exculpatory

evidence” were presented and exhausted in the state courts.

3

should be included in the habeas petition. 

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:

(a) Amendments. A party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter 

of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the 

pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action 

has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any 

time within 20 days after it is served. Otherwise 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. 

In this case, a responsive pleading has not been served, and Petitioner has not previously

amended his petition. In addition, Petitioner has shown good cause to amend the petition. 

Accordingly, the motion to supplement is GRANTED, and Petitioner will be provided an

opportunity to file an amended petition. However, Petitioner is advised that the amended petition

must be complete in and of itself. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Petitioner’s motion to substitute counsel is GRANTED;

2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to substitute Christopher J. Cannon, Esq., in for

Petitioner as counsel of record; 

3) Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition is GRANTED; the First Amended Petition is

DUE no later than thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00684-LJO -GSA Document 35 Filed 06/13/06 Page 3 of 3