Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01169/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01169-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edwin Byrnes
Petitioner
Folsom State Prison
Respondent

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWIN BYRNES, III, No. CIV S-05-1169-MCE-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

FOLSOM STATE PRISON 

WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court are petitioner’s motion for 

correction of the lodged record (Doc. 34) and respondent’s motion for leave to file an amended

answer (Doc. 43). The merits of petitioner’s petition, filed on June 13, 2005, will be addressed

separately.

In his motion regarding the lodged record, petitioner asserts that respondent erred

in submitting post-conviction briefs and orders with the lodged record instead of as exhibits to

the answer. Whether as lodged documents or as exhibits, the court will still be able to review the

entire record in this case. Therefore, no correction is needed and petitioner’s motion will be

Case 2:05-cv-01169-MCE -CMK Document 49 Filed 09/07/06 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

2

denied. 

Respondent seeks leave to amend his answer to the petition to include the

affirmative defense that the petition was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations imposed

by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitioner opposes respondent’s request, in part, because he does not

agree with respondent that the petition is untimely. Petitioner also asserts that respondent has

not shown good cause. 

Where leave of court to amend is sought, the court considers the following

factors: (1) whether there is a reasonable relationship between the original and amended

pleadings; (2) whether the grant of leave to amend is in the interest of judicial economy and will

promote the speedy resolution of the entire controversy; (3) whether there was a delay in seeking

leave to amend; (4) whether the grant of leave to amend would delay a trial on the merits of the

original claim; and (5) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced by amendment. See

Jackson v. Bank of Hawai’i, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to amend should be

denied where the proposed amendment is frivolous. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833

F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). Considering these factors, the court finds that there is a clear

relationship between the answer on file and the proposed amended answer. The court also finds

that granting leave to amend to include a statute of limitations defense is in the interests of

judicial economy and speedy resolution of the entire action and that the proposed amendment

would not delay a merits adjudication of this case. While the petitioner would certainly be

prejudiced by the added statute of limitations defense if it is true that his petition is untimely, the

court concludes that, on balance, the factors support granting leave to amend the answer. The

court will grant petitioner an opportunity to file a supplemental traverse responding to the statute

of limitations defense. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01169-MCE -CMK Document 49 Filed 09/07/06 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

3

As to whether there was delay in seeking amendment, the court notes that

respondent filed his original answer on March 16, 2006. Respondent filed the instant motion for

leave to amend, and submitted a proposed amended answer, on June 13, 2006 – only three

months later. This is not an unreasonable delay. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to correct the lodged record (Doc. 34) is denied; 

2. Respondent’s motion for leave to amend the answer (Doc. 43) is granted;

3. The proposed amended answer, submitted on June 13, 2006, has been

filed; and

4. Petitioner may file a supplemental traverse addressing the statute of

limitations defense within 30 days of the date of this order, whereupon this case shall stand

submitted.

DATED: September 6, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01169-MCE -CMK Document 49 Filed 09/07/06 Page 3 of 3