From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bell v. Hartley

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 17, 2008
1:08-CV-01090 LJO GSA HC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2008)

Opinion

1:08-CV-01090 LJO GSA HC.

October 17, 2008


ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT PETITION [Doc. #10] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR FILING RESPONSE [Doc. #9]


Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On July 7, 2008, Petitioner filed his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following a preliminary review of the petition, on August 15, 2008, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to file a responsive pleading to the petition. On October 6, 2008, Petitioner filed the instant motion to supplement his petition. At this time, Respondent has not yet filed a response.

Petitioner brings his motion to supplement his petition with additional argument based on a recent decision by the California Supreme Court in In re Lawrence, 44 Cal. 4th 1181 (2008). Petitioner claims this authority is essential to resolution of his claims. Petitioner states this authority was not available to him at the time he filed his petition.

Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Supplemental Pleadings. On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. The court may permit supplementation even though the original pleading is defective in stating a claim or defense. The court may order that the opposing party plead to the supplemented pleading within a specified time.

Considering all factors, it appears that GOOD CAUSE exists for granting Petitioner's motion and permitting the supplement.

Accordingly, Petitioner's motion to supplement his petition is GRANTED. In fairness to Respondent, the time for filing an answer is EXTENDED by thirty (30) days to and including December 18, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Bell v. Hartley

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 17, 2008
1:08-CV-01090 LJO GSA HC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2008)
Case details for

Bell v. Hartley

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN DALE BELL, Petitioner, v. J.D. HARTLEY, Warden, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 17, 2008

Citations

1:08-CV-01090 LJO GSA HC (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2008)