Richard v. Howell, 2:18-cv-00181

Petitioner Marvin D. Richard (with appointed counsel) filed a second amended federal habeas petition; respondents filed a motion to dismiss that petition.
On March 15, 2019 Richard moved for leave to file a third amended petition to add factual detail to a claim respondents characterize as unexhausted.
Respondents opposed the amendment and had already filed a motion to dismiss the second amended petition; Richard had not yet responded to that motion.
The court applied Rule 15(a)(2) standards (freely give leave), considering bad faith, delay, prejudice, and futility, and found no bad faith or unfair prejudice and that futility/exhaustion were better addressed on a motion to dismiss.
The court granted leave to file the third amended petition, directed the clerk to file it, denied respondents’ motion to dismiss the second amended petition as moot (without prejudice), and gave respondents 30 days to respond to the third amended petition.
The court also granted Richard’s motion to file Exhibit 37 (a psychological evaluation supplement) under seal, finding good cause based on privacy and the state court’s prior sealing of the evaluation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Leave to amend petition	Richard: allowance justified to add newly developed factual/evidentiary basis for claim	Respondents: amendment is futile because the claim is unexhausted; oppose amendment	Granted — court found no bad faith, no undue prejudice, and exhaustion/futility better addressed in a motion to dismiss; third amended petition ordered filed
Effect on pending motion to dismiss	Richard: third amended petition should replace second amended petition	Respondents: moved to dismiss the second amended petition	Motion to dismiss the second amended petition denied as moot without prejudice; respondents may reassert arguments against the third amended petition
Schedule for response	Richard: not addressed beyond seeking amendment	Respondents: needed time to respond to pending pleadings	Respondents given 30 days from entry of order to respond to the third amended petition; other scheduling order remains in effect
Seal Exhibit 37 (psychological supplement)	Richard: privacy interests and state court previously sealed the evaluation; requests sealing	Respondents: did not oppose in district court	Granted — court found good cause to file Exhibit 37 under seal; no further action required because exhibit already filed under seal

Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (strong presumption of public access to judicial filings)
Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard for sealing judicial records and showing of compelling reasons)
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (good cause standard for sealing discovery materials)
United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1981) (Rule 15 amendment policy favors granting leave to amend)
In re Morris, 363 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2004) (factors to consider in granting leave to amend: bad faith, delay, prejudice, futility)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (principles guiding leave to amend under Rule 15)
Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (court’s inherent control over its records; access may be denied to prevent improper use)