Opinion
2:22-cv-1158 WBS CKD P
10-10-2023
RICHARD HOWARD WATKINS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition is submitted to the court for decision.
On September 21, 2023, petitioner filed a second petition, which, under Ninth Circuit precedent, the court must consider as a proposed amended petition. Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 887-90 (9th Cir. 2008).
However, in reviewing the amended petition, it appears that petitioner adds a new claim and omits the claims asserted in his original petition. As the court assumes that petitioner does not wish to abandon the claims in the original petition, the amended petition will be stricken. Petitioner may file a second amended petition including all of his claims, but, if he does, he must also include a motion for leave to amend explaining why leave to amend should be granted. Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court grants leave to amend when “justice so requires.” In deciding whether leave to amend should be granted, the court considers, among other things, whether there has been undue delay or bad faith. Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 577 (9th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's proposed amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 27) is stricken.