Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00981/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00981-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Moua Vue
Petitioner
Jeanne Woodford
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOUA VUE,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-05-0981 DFL KJM P 

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner’s application was filed on May 17, 2005. On

December 27, 2005, respondent filed a motion to dismiss in which respondent asserts petitioner

has failed to exhaust state court remedies with respect to his claims.

On January 17, 2006, petitioner filed a motion seeking leave to amend his habeas

application along with a proposed amended application and request that the application be stayed

pending the exhaustion of state court remedies. On May 4, 2006 petitioner filed a notice in which

petitioner asserts that he has now exhausted state court remedies with respect to all of the claims

raised in the proposed amended habeas application.

/////

///// 

Case 2:05-cv-00981-JAM-CKD Document 14 Filed 05/26/06 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

1

 A motion to dismiss is not a “responsive pleading” for purposes of Rule 15(a). Nolen

v. Fitzharris, 450 F.2d 958 (9thCir. 1971). 

2

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) a party may amend his pleading once

as a matter of course anytime before a responsive pleading is filed.1 Therefore, respondent’s

motion to dismiss will be denied as moot and petitioner’s January 17, 2006 motion to amend will

be granted. Because petitioner has now exhausted state court remedies, petitioner’s request for a

stay will be denied as moot. Respondent will be directed to file an answer with respect to

petitioner’s amended application within sixty days.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s December 27, 2005 motion to dismiss is denied.

2. Petitioner’s January 17, 2006 motion to amend is granted.

3. Petitioner’s January 17, 2006 request that this matter be stayed is denied.

4. Respondent is directed to file an answer within sixty days from the date of this

order. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondent shall include with the

answer any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues

presented in the application. Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

5. Petitioner's traverse, if any, is due on or before thirty days from the date

respondent’s answer is filed.

DATED: May 25, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

vue0981.am

Case 2:05-cv-00981-JAM-CKD Document 14 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 2