Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01110/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01110-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darral Adams
Respondent
Michael James
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

MICHAEL JAMES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

DARRAL ADAMS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-01110-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO FILE AMENDED PETITION

(Doc. 11); ORDER DIRECTING AMENDED

PETITION TO BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY

DAYS 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO FILE AMENDED PETITION

(Doc. 10)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR DISCOVERY (Doc. 9)

ORDER WITHDRAWING ORDER TO

ANSWER (Doc. 7)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PETITIONER A FORM PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 2254

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed his original federal petition on July 30, 2007. (Doc. 1). On January 15,

2008, after conducting a preliminary screening of the petition, the Court ordered Respondent to

file his response to the petition. (Doc. 7). On January 28, 2008, apparently in response to the

Court’s order to answer, Petitioner filed a motion for discovery. (Doc. 9). On January 31, 2008,

Petitioner filed a motion to amend his petition by deleting one claim and adding another. (Doc.

Case 1:07-cv-01110-JMD Document 12 Filed 02/08/08 Page 1 of 4
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

10). Then, to complicate matters further, Petitioner filed yet another motion to amend on

February 5, 2008, this time simply contending that he wishes to file an amended petition to

properly “federalize” his claims. (Doc. 11). 

DISCUSSION

A. Leave to Amend.

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

and 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, because no responsive pleading has yet been filed, Petitioner has a right to file an

amended petition. Thus, although no leave of Court is formally required on this occasion, the

Court will grant Petitioner’s motion to amend, dated February 5, 2008. (Doc. 11). However, it

does bear mentioning that, by waiting seven months until the Court had conducted its review of

the petition and issued a scheduling order with filing deadlines for the case, Petitioner has placed

the Court in the position of now having to withdraw its earlier order, wait for Petitioner to file his

amended petition, screen the amended petition, and determine what, if any, further action is

merited. 

The Court assumes that Petitioner’s request to file an amended petition dated February 5,

2008, supercedes his earlier request to amend his petition dated January 31, 2008. Thus, the

Court will deny the earlier request as moot and grant the later request. Moreover, because the

amended petition will supercede the original petition, the Court will withdraw the order to

answer dated January 15, 2008.

B. Discovery 

Unlike other civil litigation, a habeas corpus petitioner is not entitled to broad discovery.

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 901, 904, 117 S.Ct. 1793 (1997). Rule 6 of the Rules Governing

Case 1:07-cv-01110-JMD Document 12 Filed 02/08/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Section 2254 Cases states that a party may request discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. However, discovery is limited to the discretion of the district court and only if good

cause is shown. See Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Court approval of all

discovery is necessary. See Rule 6; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. 

The Court may use a variety of methods to avoid the need for an evidentiary hearing.

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 81, 97 S.Ct. 1621 (1977). In some situations, discovery may

be appropriate to replace the need for an evidentiary hearing. Id. In addition, Rule 7 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases allows the Court to direct the parties to expand the record to

include additional documents. The purpose of this rule is to allow the judge to dispose of certain

issues without the need for an evidentiary hearing. See Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 7 of

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Here, however, the Court sees no present need for discovery. Petitioner has requested

leave to file an amended petition and the Court, in this Order, will grant leave to file an amended

petition. Until the amended petition has been filed and the Court has conducted its preliminary

screening of the petition to determine whether it satisfies basic requirements under federal law, it

cannot be determined whether the case will be allowed to proceed. Accordingly, any request for

discovery at this early juncture is entirely premature. 

ORDERS

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Petitioner’s motion for discovery (Doc. 9), is DENIED as PREMATURE;

2. Petitioner’s motion to amend dated January 31, 2008 (Doc. 10), is DENIED as

MOOT; 

3. Petitioner’s motion to amend dated February 5, 2008, is GRANTED; Petitioner is

granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

petition using the form provided by the Clerk of the Court. Petitioner must state

Case 1:07-cv-01110-JMD Document 12 Filed 02/08/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

each ground for relief clearly and concisely, being sure to allege a federal

constitutional violation as a basis for each ground. Petitioner must fill out the

form petition in its entirety, listing any efforts he has made, either on direct

appeal of his conviction or in state habeas corpus proceedings, to challenge his

conviction or sentence, and list the dates and grounds raised at each court and the

date each court ruled on each petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner must

also name the proper respondent, as indicated in the body of this order. The

amended petition must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this

order and should be clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED PETITION,” contain

the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

Petitioner should also note that every pleading to which an amendment is

permitted must be retyped or rewritten and filed so that it is complete in itself

without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. Local Rule 15-220. 

4. The Order to File a Response dated January 15, 2008 (Doc. 7), is WITHDRAWN;

and,

5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for

federal prisoners filing pursuant to § 2254. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a

Recommendation that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-01110-JMD Document 12 Filed 02/08/08 Page 4 of 4