Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02411/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02411-3/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 - 06cv2411

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCEL O. GOMEZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06-CV-2411-H-CAB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DENYING MOTION TO

AMEND PETITION TO ADD

CLAIM SEEKING TO AMEND

PAROLE CONDITION

vs.

JEFFREY FAGOT, Regional

Administrator, Adult Parole

Operations, Region 4,

Defendant.

On January 11, 2007, petitioner Marcel O. Gomez (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, filed a first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (“FAP”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of

counsel and that his guilty plea was involuntary. (Doc. No. 7.) On February 13, 2007,

Petitioner filed a motion entitled “Second Amended Motion for Modification of Parole

Condition,” seeking to have the Court amend Petitioner’s parole condition to eliminate

the requirement that he not possess or access a computer with a modem without prior

approval of his parole officer. (Doc. No. 15.) The magistrate judge construed this

motion as a motion to amend the FAP. On April 11, 2007, respondent Jeffrey Fagot

(“Respondent”) filed an opposition to the motion to amend the FAP. (Doc. No. 19.)

On July 6, 2007, the magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation that

Case 3:06-cv-02411-H-CAB Document 47 Filed 08/15/07 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 - 06cv2411

Petitioner’s motion to amend the FAP be denied. Petitioner did not file an objection

to the report and recommendation. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the

report and recommendation and DENIES Petitioner’s motion to amend the FAP.

Background

On August 6, 2003, Petitioner pled guilty to having unlawful sexual intercourse

with a minor more than three years younger than himself and disobeying a court order

after having sex with a 16-year-old girl he met in an Internet chat room. (Lodgment

1, at 6-8, 11.) Gomez was placed on five years probation and ordered to register as a

sex offender. (Id. at 22-24.) Petitioner has also been ordered not to possess or access

a computer with a modem without the prior approval of his parole officer. (Petr.’s

Second Amended Mot. for Modification of Parole Condition (“Petr.’s Mot.”), at 5.) 

On January 11, 2007, Petitioner filed his FAP alleging that he received

ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was involuntary. (FAP, at

6-7.) On February 13, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion seeking to have the Court amend

Petitioner’s parole conditions to eliminate the requirement that he not possess or access

a computer with a modem without prior approval of his parole officer. (Petr.’s Mot.

at 1.) Petitioner argues that this condition denies him the right of “full” access to the

courts. (Id.) On July 6, 2007, the magistrate judge, construing the motion as a motion

to amend the FAP, filed a report and recommendation that Petitioner’s motion to amend

the FAP be denied. 

Discussion

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, after a

responsive pleading has been served, “a party may amend [its] pleading only by leave

of the court or by written consent of the adverse party . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). A

district court should freely grant leave to amend a complaint when justice so requires.

See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir.

2006). A district court need not grant leave to amend, however, where the amendment

prejudices the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, produces an undue delay in

Case 3:06-cv-02411-H-CAB Document 47 Filed 08/15/07 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

- 3 - 06cv2411

litigation, or is futile. See id.

Here, justice does not require allowing Petitioner to amend his complaint to add

a claim to allow Petitioner to eliminate the requirement that he not possess or access

a computer with a modem without prior approval of his parole officer because such a

claim would be futile. The probationary restriction is logically related to the offense

Petitioner was found guilty of, unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor Petitioner met

in an Internet chat room. Furthermore, the restriction does not preclude Petitioner from

being able to perform legal research regarding his habeas petition as Petitioner is not

restricted from using legal texts or legal software on computers without a modem. In

addition, a habeas petition is not an appropriate means to seek to challenge a condition

of confinement, such as Petitioner is seeking here. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477, 481 (1994); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the

Court denies Petitioner’s motion to amend his habeas petition to add a claim seeking

to eliminate the requirement that he not possess or access a computer with a modem

without prior approval of his parole officer.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed, the Court ADOPTS the report and recommendation

and DENIES Petitioner’s motion to amend the FAP.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 15, 2007

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

All parties of record.

Case 3:06-cv-02411-H-CAB Document 47 Filed 08/15/07 Page 3 of 3