IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 19, 2010
SUTTER NGUYN, PETITIONER,
T. FELKER, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dckt. No. 1. Respondents filed their answer on March 9, 2009, and on April 1, 2009, petitioner filed his reply. Dckt. Nos. 18, 21. Presently under consideration is petitioner's motion to file an amended traverse. Respondents have not filed an opposition. As explained, this motion is denied without prejudice.
In the present motion petitioner seeks leave to amend his argument in support of "Argument IX." Dckt. No. 23. A party may file an amended pleading after a responsive pleading has been filed "only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).*fn1 Leave to amend should freely be given "when justice so requires." Id.
It appears that petitioner intends to amend his reply with respect to his claim that counsel was ineffective. Pet'r's Mot., at 1-2. However, petitioner has not complied with the Local Rule of this Court requiring that he submit an amended pleading. See Local Rule 220. Accordingly, petitioner's motion is denied without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that petitioner's July 13, 2009 motion to file an amended reply is denied without prejudice. In the event that a new motion is filed, the respondent shall comply with Local Rule 230(l), which requires the filing of either an opposition brief or statement of non-opposition.