Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00863/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00863-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerome Lee Cross
Petitioner
Kings County Superior Court
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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEROME LEE CROSS,

Petitioner,

v.

KINGS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00863 MJS (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION

TO AMEND PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS

(Docs. 22, 24)

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 6-7.)

On June 6, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Pet., ECF 

No. 1.) On September 2, 2014, the Court dismissed the petition as untimely. (ECF No. 

12.) Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment on September 12, 2014. 

(ECF No. 14.) On December 12, 2014, the Court granted the motion for reconsideration 

in part. (ECF No. 21.) The Court granted the motion with regard to claim one, but found 

nevertheless it had been properly dismissed for failure to exhaust (rather than for being 

Case 1:14-cv-00863-MJS Document 25 Filed 03/23/16 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

untimely as found earlier). However, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration as 

to the second through fourth claims as they remained untimely. 

On September 18, 2015, the Court received a motion to amend the petition for 

writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 22.) Respondent filed a response to the motion on 

October 7, 2015, and Petitioner filed a reply on November 6, 2015. (ECF No. 23-24.)

The motion to amend only addresses substantive issues presented in the claims, 

and does not address the issues of exhaustion and untimeliness that formed the basis of 

the dismissal of the petition. 

Based on the Court’s review of the motion to amend, the Court's dismissal of the 

petition would remain unchanged despite Petitioner's attempt to rephrase the arguments 

in his petition. 

The Court finds that amendment would be futile such that justice does not require 

amendment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to 

Amend be DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00863-MJS Document 25 Filed 03/23/16 Page 2 of 2