Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00410/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00410-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rick Hill
Respondent
Christopher Williams
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

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

RICK HILL, Warden

Respondent.

 /

1:10-cv-00410-DLB (HC)

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO RESPOND

ISSUED MARCH 15, 2010, AND GRANTING

PETITIONER OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT

SECOND AMENDED PETITION

[Docs. 5, 10]

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 the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 8, 2010. (Court

Doc. 1.) On March 15, 2010, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to the petition. 

(Court Doc. 5.) 

On April 28, 2010, Petitioner filed a first amended petition. (Court Doc. 10.) 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 (9 Cir. 1995). Leave of Court is th

required for all other amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). 

1

Case 1:10-cv-00410-DLB Document 11 Filed 05/07/10 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

In this instance, Respondent has not yet filed a response to the petition and Petitioner may

amend the petition as a matter of right. In the amended petition, Petitioner states “For purposes of

this amended petition for writ of habeas corpus petitioner adopts the facts set forth in the opening

brief.” (Amended Petition, at 1.) However, Petitioner is advised that pursuant to Local Rule

220, the amended petition must be complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded

pleading. In light of Local Rule 220, the Court will grant Petitioner the opportunity to submit a

second amended petition that is complete in itself without reference to prior petition.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court’s March 15, 2010, order to respond is VACATED; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner may file a

second amended petition; and

3. Failure to comply with this order will result in the action proceeding on

Petitioner’s first amended petition filed April 28, 2010. (Court Doc. 10.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 6, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00410-DLB Document 11 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 2