Eubanks v. Baker
3:16-cv-00336
D. Nev.Oct 25, 2017Background
- Petitioner Charles Eubanks filed a motion for leave to file a third amended habeas petition, asserting the second amended petition contained duplicative, unorganized, and improperly pled claims and missing evidentiary support.
- Eubanks previously filed two amended petitions (ECF Nos. 16, 31) and attached the proposed third amended petition to his motion (ECF No. 37-1).
- Respondents filed a response stating they do not oppose Eubanks’ request for leave to amend.
- The court analyzed the motion under Rule 15(a) (and 28 U.S.C. § 2242’s incorporation of civil amendment rules) and Ninth Circuit precedent favoring liberal amendment.
- The court found no evidence of bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice to respondents and granted leave to amend; the Clerk was ordered to file the third amended petition as a separate docket entry.
- The court denied as moot respondents’ motion for an extension of time and set new briefing deadlines for respondents’ answer/response, petitioner’s reply, and subsequent briefing if a motion to dismiss is filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner should be permitted to amend his habeas petition | Eubanks: second amended petition was defective (duplication, mispled claims, missing evidence); requests leave to file corrected third amended petition | Respondents: do not oppose the motion to amend | Court granted leave to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 2242; ordered filing of third amended petition |
| Whether factors counseling denial of amendment (bad faith, undue delay, prejudice) exist | Eubanks: implied none; sought amendment to correct pleading defects | Respondents: did not assert prejudice or other obstructive factors | Court found no bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice and applied liberal Rule 15 policy to permit amendment |
| Effect of respondents' motion for extension of time | N/A (procedural) | Respondents sought extension to respond | Court denied the extension as moot because it granted leave to amend and reset new deadlines |
| What deadlines govern post-amendment briefing | Eubanks: requested leave to proceed and move forward | Respondents: requested additional time (motion for extension) | Court set timeline: respondents 60 days to answer/respond; petitioner 45 days to reply after answer; respondents 30 days to respond to reply; if respondents move to dismiss, petitioner 30 days to oppose and respondents 30 days to reply |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1995) (discussing factors bearing on leave to amend under Rule 15)
- Outdoor Sys., Inc. v. City of Mesa, 997 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1993) (leave to amend rests in court’s discretion)
- DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987) (Rule 15 aims to decide cases on merits rather than pleadings)
- United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1981) (Rule 15's amendment policy should be applied with extreme liberality)