UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 28, 2011
ROSS ALLEN WARDLAW, PETITIONER,
C. M. HARRISON, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alex Kozinski Chief Circuit Judge
The court cannot accept Wardlaw's October 30, 2006 "amendment to petition for writ of habeas corpus," because that document alleges a claim for relief not previously asserted by Wardlaw, but does not restate the claims alleged in his original petition, filed October 14, 2004. It therefore does not comply with this court's rule that an amended petition "be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading." E. D. Cal. R. 220.
Wardlaw is granted leave to file an amended petition that is complete in itself and "include[s] critical points and authorities not included in his original petition." Motion of Dec. 11, 2006. Because "[c]onclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief," Greenway v. Schriro, 653 F.3d 790, 804 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks page 2 omitted), Wardlaw's amended petition must state any specific facts in the record that support his claims for relief.
By February 17, 2012, respondent shall lodge the state court record and serve a copy on Wardlaw. Wardlaw's amended petition is due April 17, 2012.
Except as stated in this order, all pending motions are denied.
Sitting by designation
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.