Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01210/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01210-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ralph M. Diaz
Respondent
Marvin Johnson
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

RALPH M. DIAZ, Warden, California 

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01210-SKO HC

ORDER APPENDING LETTERS OF 

APPELLATE COUNSEL TO TRAVERSE

(Doc. 33)

Petitioner, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254,

1 moves to append to his traverse two letters from his appellate counsel concerning the limits 

of her representation of Petitioner on direct appeal and his need to raise his claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel in a habeas petition separate from his direct appeal. Respondent has not filed

an opposition to the motion.

Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 15(a), a party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 

21 days after service of the pleading, a required responsive pleading, or a motion under F.R.Civ.P. 

12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier; in all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with 

the opposing party's written consent or the Court's leave. 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rule 12 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts. In ruling on a motion to amend a petition 

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), both parties consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:12-cv-01210-SKO Document 37 Filed 08/05/15 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

for writ of habeas corpus, a court must consider bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing 

party, futility of amendment, and whether or not the party has previously amended his pleadings. 

Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). A court may disallow a proposed amendment 

that would be futile, such as (1) one in which the amended matter is duplicative or patently frivolous, 

(2) presents no new facts but only new theories, or (3) provides no satisfactory explanation for

failure to develop the original contentions fully. Id.

The documentation that Petition seeks to append to his traverse has little substantive value 

other than documenting appellate counsel's explanation of her reasons for failing to raise the issue of 

trial counsel's failure to introduce evidence at the motion to suppress and offer to assist Petitioner in 

preparing a separate habeas corpus petition to pursue the issue. In addition, Petitioner has delayed 

over two years after filing his original traverse before seeking to append the letters.

Respondent's having filed no objection to the motion, however, the Court hereby ORDERS 

that the two letters of Petitioner's appellate counsel, submitted by Petitioner as part of Doc. 33, shall 

be appended to Petitioner's first amended traverse. No further amendment shall be permitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01210-SKO Document 37 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 2