Norman Parada v. B. Birkholz

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02718
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 NORMAN PARADA, No. 2:24-cv-02718-JAK (BFM) 13 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING 14 v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND 15 WARDEN, FCC-LOMPOC LOW II, RECOMMENDATION 16 Respondent. 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, a review has been made of the Petition and First 19 Amended Petition, the records and files herein, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 20 Recommendation, Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and 21 Defendant’s Response to Petitioner’s Objections. A de novo review has been 22 conducted of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections 23 have been made. Based on those reviews, the recommendations of the Magistrate 24 Judge are accepted. 25 In his Objections, Petitioner requests leave to amend his Petition to add a new 26 claim. (Dkt. 39 at 8–10.) That request is granted. Leave to amend should be “freely 27 granted when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. That policy is to be applied with 28 “extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 1 || Petitioner moved to amend his Petition in his Objections. This was in response to the 2 || Magistrate Judge stating that the argument concerning supervised release was a 3 || separate claim and was not subsumed within the relief sought in the Petition. He has 4 || had prior opportunities to amend his Petition, but the First Amended Petition was 5 || submitted after counsel was appointed to represent Petitioner who was previously a 6 || self-represented litigant. The request for further leave to amend was effective, in that 7 || the BOP decided the issue to which the proposed new claim was directed. Failure to 8 || exhaust provides no reason to deny leave to amend. Respondent may raise issues as 9 || to exhaustion in response to any amended petition, but it is not mandatory in this 10 || context. The purely legal question for which leave to amend is requested is not one 11 || where judicial review will benefit significantly from prior agency review. Finally, 12 || although granting leave to amend would cause some delay in adjudicating the case, 13 || that alone, is not an appropriate reason to deny leave to amend. /d. at 712-13. For 14 || these reasons, through the exercise of discretion leave to amend is granted. 15 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 16 l. The Report and Recommendation is accepted. 17 2. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 20) is denied. 18 3. The Motion for Leave to Amend the Petition filed at Dkt. 33 1s denied. 19 4. The Petition and First Amended Petition (Dkts. 1, 29) are denied as moot. 20 5. Petitioner’s request for leave to amend (Dkt. 39 at 8) is granted. Within 21 || 30 days after the issuance of this Order, Petitioner may file an amended petition based 22 || on the statements made in his Objections. 23 6. The Court Clerk shall serve this Order on all counsel or parties of record. 24 25 i | A 26 || DATED: June 20, 2025 C) 7 John A. Kronstadt | United States District Judge 28