Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00394/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00394-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Copenhaver
Respondent
Eric Valentine
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on March 18, 2013. (Doc. 1). On March 26, 2013, the Court 

ordered Respondent to file a response to the petition within sixty days. (Doc. 5). On April 24, 2013, 

Petitioner filed the instant motion for leave to supplement his petition with what is alleged to be an 

excerpt of a transcript of the hearing at which restitution was ordered in Petitioner’s case. (Doc. 8). 

Petitioner also makes a brief legal argument based on the information contained in the purported 

transcript. 

DISCUSSION

A petitioner may amend a petition for writ of habeas corpus once “as a matter of course,” and 

ERIC VALENTINE,

 Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN COPENHAVER,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00394-JLT

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

TO SUPPLEMENT PETITION 

(Doc. 8)

Case 1:13-cv-00394-JLT Document 9 Filed 05/03/13 Page 1 of 2
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

without leave of Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), 

as applied to habeas corpus actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. Calderon v. United States District Court (Thomas), 144 F.3d 618, 620 (9th Cir.

1998); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Leave of Court is required for all other 

amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). Here, Respondent has not filed a response. Thus, leave of Court is 

not required for any amendment to the petition. 

The Court construes Petitioner’s motion, however, as a motion to supplement the original 

petition, rather than as a motion for leave to file a new amended petition. 

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE having been show, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Petitioner’s motion to 

supplement the petition (Doc. 8), is GRANTED. The original petition is deemed supplemented by the 

information and arguments contained in the instant motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:13-cv-00394-JLT Document 9 Filed 05/03/13 Page 2 of 2