Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01347/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01347-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RUDY S. GONZALEZ, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CONNIE GIPSON, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:13-cv-1347-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 29, 2013, the court accepted petitioner’s amended 

petition for filing and directed the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of the amended petition on 

respondent. ECF No. 11. After several extensions of time, respondent filed an answer. ECF No. 

25. The answer is responsive to all of petitioner’s claims for relief, as raised in both the original 

and amended petitions. See ECF No. 25. The answer also notes that although petitioner 

purported to include “additional pages” supporting his fourth claim for relief, respondent was 

unable to locate such pages in the record. Id. at 34. In response, petitioner filed a document 

stating that “the petition which was answered is erroneous, because the amended petition was 

properly filed with the court.” ECF No. 27. He believes there has been some form of “clerical 

error” or “oversight” and seeks leave to amend the petition. Id. 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-01347-JKS Document 28 Filed 05/23/14 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

 Petitioner’s request to further amend his petition in light of respondent’s assertion that he 

did not provide supporting documents as represented, is denied. If petitioner believes that 

respondent overlooked the “additional pages” he attached to support his fourth claim for relief, he 

may argue this point in his traverse. Alternatively, in the event that those pages were 

inadvertently omitted from either of the petitions, petitioner may file a traverse that includes the 

“additional pages.” Respondent has properly responded to all claims raised by petitioner in this 

action. Petitioner’s motion to amend is denied as unnecessary. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to amend (ECF No. 27) 

is denied. 

DATED: May 22, 2014. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01347-JKS Document 28 Filed 05/23/14 Page 2 of 2