Case Information
*1 Case 3:24-cv-00552-MMD-CLB Document 35 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * FRANCISCO ANTONIO CRUZ, Case No. 3:24-cv-00552-MMD-CLB Petitioner, ORDER v. TERRY ROYAL, et al. , Respondents. Pro se
Petitioner Francisco Antonio Cruz filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and moved for the appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 1-1 (“Petition”), 1-2.) The Court denied Cruz’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice and entered an order to show cause, instructing Cruz to “file such proof as he may have to demonstrate that the Petition is timely.” (ECF Nos. 5, 9.) Cruz responded. (ECF No. 10.) Based on Cruz’s response, the Court directed that it be served on Respondents and that Respondents file a response to the Petition. (ECF No. 11.) Within that service order, the Court indicated that if Cruz “is aware of any claim not included in his Petition, he should notify the court of that as soon as possible, perhaps by means of a motion to amend his petition to add the claim.” ( Id . at 1.) Respondents moved to dismiss the Petition, and Cruz requested an extension of time to seek leave to amend his Petition. (ECF Nos. 25, 26.) The Court granted Cruz’s extension request and denied Respondents’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. (ECF No. 28.) Cruz now moves for leave to file his first-amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF Nos. 34 (“Motion to Amend”), 34-1 (“Amended Petition”).) Respondents have not responded, and their time for doing so has now expired. See LR 7-2(b).
*2 Case 3:24-cv-00552-MMD-CLB Document 35 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 2 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party may amend a pleading with the Court’s leave, and “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” The Court finds that good cause exists to grant Cruz’s Motion to Amend, especially since Respondents have consented to the granting of the Motion to Amend. See LR 7-2(d) (“The failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion . . . constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.”).
It is therefore ordered that the Motion to Amend (ECF No. 34) is granted. It is further kindly ordered that the Clerk of Court file the Amended Petition (ECF
No. 34-1). It is further ordered that Respondents file their response to the Amended Petition within 60 days of the date of this Order. In all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered April 10, 2025 (ECF No. 11) will remain in effect.
DATED THIS 31 st Day of October 2025. MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 28