Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01759/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01759-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. Adams
Respondent
Salvador David Gerolaga
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SALVADOR DAVID GEROLAGA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

D. ADAMS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-01759 OWW SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT PETITION 

[Doc. #10]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On December 6, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. After conducting

a preliminary review of the petition, on January 10, 2007, the Court issued an order directing

Respondent to file a response to the petition. On February 22, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to

supplement his petition. 

DISCUSSION

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to supplement his petition. It appears

Petitioner seeks to add argument with respect to his third ground for relief. In said ground, Petitioner

claims he was deprived of his federal constitutional rights to a jury trial and due process when the

Case 1:06-cv-01759-JMD Document 11 Filed 03/05/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

trial court imposed the upper terms by relying on factors found true neither by a jury nor beyond a

reasonable doubt. Petitioner includes a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Cunningham v.

California, 549 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 856 (2007). In his petition, Petitioner noted that certiorari had

been granted in the appellate case. 

Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are

just, permit the party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions or

occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be

supplemented. Permission may be granted even though the original pleading is defective in

its statement of a claim for relief or defense. If the court deems it advisable that the adverse

party plead to the supplemental pleading, it shall so order, specifying the time therefor.

Petitioner has shown good cause to supplement the petition and include the additional

argument. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to supplement the petition is GRANTED and

Respondent is DIRECTED to address the additional argument in his response to Petitioner’s Ground

Three. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01759-JMD Document 11 Filed 03/05/07 Page 2 of 2