G.A.A. v. Tonya Andrews, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 24, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01102
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 G.A.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-01102-JLT-EPG-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND AND DIRECTING 13 v. PETITIONER TO FILE ECF No. 14-1 AS FIRST AMENDED PETITION ALONG 14 TONYA ANDREWS, et al., WITH EXHIBITS

15 Respondents. (ECF No. 14)

16 17 Petitioner, represented by counsel, is a federal immigration detainee proceeding with a 18 petition of writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 On September 17, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant motion to amend the petition for writ 20 of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 14.) The motion has been referred to the undersigned for appropriate 21 action. (ECF No. 18.) 22 A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it, 23 or “if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a 24 responsive pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its 25 pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 15(a)(2). See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005) (noting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 15 is applicable to habeas proceedings). Leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, the Court may decline to grant leave to amend “if 1 there is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, 2 repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the 3 opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” 4 Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) 5 (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 6 Here, Petitioner has moved to amend and supplement the petition to clarify that 7 “Respondents did not attempt to remove him from the United States, instead transferring him to a 8 different facility in the District without any notice” and to add “now ripe Zadvydas habeas claims 9 for release.” (ECF No. 14 at 2.) On September 23, 2025, Respondents filed a statement of non- 10 opposition to the motion to amend. (ECF No. 25.) 11 As Respondents have filed a written consent to the amendment, the Court need not 12 analyze the relevant factors under Rule 15(a) and the amendment should be allowed. See Fern v. 13 United States, 213 F.2d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 1954) (“As to the action of the court in ordering the 14 amendment . . . it had no choice in the matter. Once the adverse party has consented to the 15 amendment of a pleading, the court has no control over the matter under Rule 15(a).”). 16 “Pursuant to section 636, magistrate judges may hear and determine nondispositive 17 matters, but not dispositive matters[.]” Mitchell v. Valenzuela, 791 F.3d 1166, 1168 (9th Cir. 18 2015) (citing Hunt v. Pliler, 384 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 2004)). “To determine whether a 19 motion is dispositive, we have adopted a functional approach that looks to the effect of the 20 motion, in order to determine whether it is properly characterized as dispositive or non- 21 dispositive of a claim or defense of a party.” Mitchell, 791 F.3d at 1168–69 (internal quotation 22 marks omitted) (quoting Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2015)). “Under our 23 caselaw, to determine whether a magistrate judge’s ruling denying a motion is dispositive, we 24 examine whether the denial of the motion effectively disposes of a claim or defense or precludes 25 the ultimate relief sought.” Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 26 S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1260 (9th Cir. 2013); Flam, 788 F.3d at 1046). 27 “It should be no surprise that the magistrate judge’s decision to grant a motion to amend 1 | motion to amend in the instant proceeding “[does] not dispose of any claims or defenses and 2 | [does] not effectively deny ... any ultimate relief sought,” Mitchell, 791 F.3d at 1170 (internal 3 | quotation marks and citation omitted), the undersigned has authority to grant the motion. 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 5 1. Petitioner’s motion to amend (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED; and 6 2. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file ECF No. 14-1 as the First Amended Petition along with 7 the accompanying exhibits 1 through 15 (ECF Nos. 19-23, 14-2—14-11) as attachments 8 within seven (7) days of the date of service of this order. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11] Dated: _ September 24, 2025 [sf ey — 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28