Filed: Sep. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 10, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR. , Magistrate Judge . Introduction Before me by referral in the matter of Jamall L. Vaughn's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 1 is Vaughn's motion for leave to amend his petition. 2 The State has responded by conditionally approving an amendment for the limited purpose of supplementing the supporting facts for the three stated grounds for relief, but opposing the motion if it seeks to add additional g
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR. , Magistrate Judge . Introduction Before me by referral in the matter of Jamall L. Vaughn's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 1 is Vaughn's motion for leave to amend his petition. 2 The State has responded by conditionally approving an amendment for the limited purpose of supplementing the supporting facts for the three stated grounds for relief, but opposing the motion if it seeks to add additional gr..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR., Magistrate Judge.
Introduction
Before me by referral in the matter of Jamall L. Vaughn's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 22541 is Vaughn's motion for leave to amend his petition.2 The State has responded by conditionally approving an amendment for the limited purpose of supplementing the supporting facts for the three stated grounds for relief, but opposing the motion if it seeks to add additional grounds.3 Vaughn has not replied to the State's response.
Analysis
As the State correctly notes, there is no need for a habeas petitioner to amend a petition for the purpose of setting forth the procedural history of the matter, along with furnishing the record of proceedings in the state court.4 Those elements are provided by the State in its return of the writ.
As to the additional asserted reason for amendment, Vaughn indicates that he seeks an amendment to his petition so that he can "put[] forth adequate facts to support his grounds for relief."5 In this regard, the State does not oppose an amendment.6
As the United States Supreme Court stated in Mayle v. Felix,7 the primary reason for requiring habeas petitioners to state "facts supporting each ground" for relief is so that the district court may first determine whether the State should be ordered to show cause why the writ should not be issued.8 Then, the Court noted, the State's return of the writ must address the specific allegations of the petition.9
Accordingly, inasmuch as the State does not object to an amendment that merely provides additional factual support for the claims already asserted, and since the State has not yet filed its return of the writ, Vaughn's motion to amend is granted solely for the purpose of providing additional factual support for the grounds for relief already stated. No additional grounds may be asserted without a separate motion from Vaughn and the specific approval by the Court under the applicable law.10 Any amendment under this order must be filed by October 1, 2018. If an amendment is so filed, the time for filing the State's return of the writ shall be extended to October 22, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
