Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01572/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01572-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. Martel
Respondent
Vincent S. Phillips
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT S. PHILLIPS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

M. MARTEL, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:09-cv-01572 YNP DLB (HC) 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

MOTIONS TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED

PETITION AS MOOT

[Doc. #3, 11]

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 motions to file a first amended petition on August 26, 2009, and September

16, 2009. (Docs. #3, 11.) On September 16, 2009, Petitioner also filed a first amended petition for

writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. #10.) 

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrate Judge over all matters in

this case, including final disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 363(c).

No respondent has yet been ordered to respond in this case. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows a party leave to amend its pleading once as a

matter of right “before being served with a responsive pleading...” It is important to note that,

should a petitioner wish to amend the petition, he must do so by submitting a document entitled

“Amended Petition,” which must be a complete petition for writ of habeas corpus which will replace

the previously-filed petition. Local Rule 15-220. The Court cannot add, remove, or replace pages of

a petition that is already filed. 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:09-cv-01572-LJO -MJS Document 18 Filed 03/09/10 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

Petitioner has already filed his first amended petition, as was his right, because no responsive

pleading had yet been filed. Because Petitioner was allowed to file the first amended petition as

a matter of right, he did not need leave of this Court to do so. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motions to file a first amended petition are hereby DISMISSED AS

MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 8, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:09-cv-01572-LJO -MJS Document 18 Filed 03/09/10 Page 2 of 2