Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01558/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01558-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fred Folk
Respondent
Ricky Rene Sanders
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY RENE SANDERS,

Petitioner,

v.

FRED FOLK,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-01558-SI 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

AMEND HABEAS PETITION

Re: Dkt. No. 31

Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to amend his amended petition for writ of habeas 

corpus. Docket No. 31. He states that he wants “to provide additional context and authority to his 

existing claims.” Id. at 4. He does not attach a proposed second amended petition to his motion. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend should be freely given when 

justice so requires, but the court cannot make that determination without seeing the proposed new 

pleading. See Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 374 (3d Cir. 2000) (“Obviously, without this draft 

complaint, the District Court cannot evaluate the merits of a plaintiff’s request . . . [T]he court had 

nothing upon which to exercise its discretion.”) The motion for leave to file a second amended 

petition is DENIED because petitioner failed to attach the proposed new pleading. Docket No. 31. 

Petitioner’s failure to submit the proposed second amended petition is inexplicable in light of the 

fact that the court specifically informed him in an order filed May 20, 2019, that he had to include 

a proposed second amended petition with any motion to amend. Docket No. 25 at 2.

Moreover, because the court has already found cognizable claims for relief and petitioner 

now urges that he does not seek to add any claims but rather provide “additional context and 

authority to his existing claims,” it does not appear that further amendment is necessary. Once the 

court determines that a claim has been stated, it is not necessary or wise for a pro se litigant to 

Case 3:18-cv-01558-SI Document 32 Filed 10/03/19 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

continue to tinker with the pleading of that claim because he may plead himself out of a claim. As 

the court stated in the order filed May 20, 2019, petitioner can use his traverse to make his legal 

arguments about the claims already found cognizable. Id.

In the event that the parties were waiting for a ruling on the motion to amend before filing 

their briefs, the court now sets the following new briefing schedule: No later than October 25, 

2019, respondent must file and serve his answer to the amended petition or his motion to dismiss. 

No later than November 22, 2019, petitioner must file and serve his traverse (if an answer is filed) 

or his opposition (if a motion to dismiss is filed). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01558-SI Document 32 Filed 10/03/19 Page 2 of 2