(HC) Cabrera v. Bailey

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 22, 2025
• Docket: 1:20-cv-01738
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OMAR CABRERA, Case No. 1:20-cv-01738-KES-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER STRIKING SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 13 v. CORPUS 14 O’BRIEN BAILEY, (Doc. No. 52). 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 On March 18, 2025, the undersigned submitted Findings and Recommendations that 19 Petitioner Omar Cabrera’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1, “Petition) be denied 20 and Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability. (Doc. No. 47). Of relevance here, the 21 undersigned concluded Petitioner failed to state a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 22 because the Petition lacked facts to support such a claim. (Id. at 37). Petitioner’s counsel sought 23 and obtained an extension until April 30, 2025 to file objections. (Doc. Nos. 50, 51). On April 24 17, 2025, Petitioner submitted a pro se Supplemental Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus “to add 25 new exhausted ‘facts’ to Claim Five for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel on his Federal 26 Petition.” (Doc. No. 52). 27 A litigant represented by counsel is not entitled to file documents with the Court on his 28 own behalf. See United States v. Bosworth, 468 F. App’x 763, 764 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Because 1 | Bosworth is represented by counsel, only counsel may submit filings ....”); United States v. 2 | Arceneaux, No. 2:03-cr-371-MCE-EFB P, 2019 WL 422562, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2019) 3 | (striking pro se filings when petitioner was represented by counsel); Vieira v. Wong, No. 1:05-cv- 4 1492-OWW, 2009 WL 1082335, at *3 (E.D. Cal. April 22, 2009) (concluding that because 5 || petitioner’s pro se motion did not challenge his legal representation, any argument should be 6 | advanced by counsel). This reason alone justifies striking Petitioner’s pro se filing. 7 Further, Petitioner’s filing is an attempt to amend the Petition to include additional facts. 8 | However, the time to amend as a matter of course has long since expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 | 15(a)(1).! Thus, Petitioner can amend “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the 10 | court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Petitioner’s failure to obtain either leave from the Court 11 orconsent from Respondent further justifies striking the supplemental petition. 12 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 13 The Clerk of Court shall STRIKE Petitioner’s Supplemental Petition (Doc. No. 52) from 14 | the record. 15 '© | Dated: _ April 22, 2025 Mihaw. Wh. foareh Zaskth 17 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ig UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' Under Rule 12 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are to be applied to habeas proceedings, to the exten that 28 | they are not inconsistent with the habeas statutory provisions and habeas rules.