Knowles

Knowles v. Merkle

Good Law
27 F. App'x 738
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 11, 2001No. 00-16912; D.C. No. CV-97-00762-GEBCalifornia330 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

The government’s contention that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), which permits amendments to pleadings that relate back to the date of the original pleading, is inapplicable to habeas corpus petitions after the enactment of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) is foreclosed by Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 576 (9th Cir. 2000).

However, we also reject the claim that Knowles’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim factually relates back to his coerced confession claim, thus permitting amendment of his initial and timely habeas petition. Knowles argues that if his counsel had investigated two possible defense witnesses, who might have testified that Knowles was not the actual shooter in the armed robbery, their testimony would have strengthened his coerced confession claim. But the concept of relation back is based on notions of fair notice. See id. Here the state was on notice that it would have to defend against a claim regarding whether a confession was coerced; nothing in this claim can be said to notify the government that it would also have to defend an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

Finally, we decline on these…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.