From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCoy v. Schultz

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 13, 2006
No. CV F 05-0102 AWI WMW HC (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2006)

Opinion

No. CV F 05-0102 AWI WMW HC.

February 13, 2006


ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE; GRANTING THIRTY DAYS TO FILE AMENDED PETITION; AND DENYING MOTION TO ADD A SUPPLEMENTAL FOOTNOTE [Doc. 11, 18]


Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On June 20, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate the order of this court granting his motion to amend his petition filed February 3, 2005, and denying all subsequent motions to amend his petition as moot. In that order, the court granted Petitioner thirty days to file his Amended Petition and informed Petitioner that because an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, an amended pleading must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 15-220; Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, Petitioner was cautioned that he must include all of his claims in his Amended Petition. Petitioner did not file an Amended Petition and the only petition on file with the court in this case is the original petition filed January 25, 2005.

Because no response has yet been filed in this case, the court will grant Petitioner one last opportunity to amend his petition. Accordingly, Petitioner may file an Amended Petition no later than thirty (30) days after the date of service of this order. As noted in the court's prior order, the Amended Petition must be complete within itself, without referring to any prior document. If no amended petition is filed within that time, this case will go forward on the original petition. Petitioner's motion to vacate the court's prior order is HEREBY DENIED.

On April 7, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion requesting to add a footnote to his original petition. A petition cannot be amended piecemeal in this manner, and must be complete in itself. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion to amend his original petition is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

McCoy v. Schultz

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 13, 2006
No. CV F 05-0102 AWI WMW HC (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2006)
Case details for

McCoy v. Schultz

Case Details

Full title:REGGIE L. McCOY, Petitioner, v. PAUL SCHULTZ, WARDEN, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 13, 2006

Citations

No. CV F 05-0102 AWI WMW HC (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2006)