Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00943/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00943-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
Respondent
Devin Otte
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

DEVIN OTTE,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-00943 OWW SMS HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT PETITION

[Doc. #15]

ORDER STRIKING ADDITIONAL

AUTHORITIES

[Doc. #17]

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by Joseph Camarata, Esq. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 21, 2006, in the

United States District Court for the Central District of California. By order dated July 7, 2006,

the case was transferred to the Eastern District and filed in this Court on July 21, 2006. 

Respondent filed an answer to the petition on December 5, 2006, and Petitioner filed a traverse

on January 31, 2007. The case is ready for review on the merits. 

On July 28, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to supplement his petition in response to

discovery provided by Respondent. 

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),

Case 1:06-cv-00943-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 09/25/07 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

144 F.3d 618, 620 (9th Cir. 1998); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9 Cir. 1995). Leave th

of Court is required for all other amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). While the Court should freely

give leave to amend if justice requires, the Court may deny leave to amend if the amendment

would be futile or subject to dismissal. Bonn, 59 F.3d at 845; Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d

829, 843 (9 Cir. 1991). th

 Considering all factors, it appears that GOOD CAUSE exists for granting Petitioner’s

motion and permitting the amendment.

On July 19, 2007, Petitioner filed a pleading entitled “Petitioner’s Notice of Additional

Authorities in Support of Petition.” Petitioner seeks to apprise the Court of additional case law

that purport to have a bearing on the issues presented. This document must be disregarded

because briefing has concluded in this matter. The Court is well aware of the developing case law

and will conduct its own research with respect to Petitioner’s claims. In addition, Petitioner did

not seek leave of court to file this notice. Furthermore, none of the cases cited by Petitioner

indicates a shift in the law which could invite further briefing. The cases cited are from other

district courts and state appellate courts. As such, they are at best persuasive authority.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to supplement petition is GRANTED; and

2. Petitioner’s Notice of Additional Authorities is STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00943-OWW -SMS Document 18 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 2