Morrow

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM **

Oregon state prisoner Earl X (“petitioner”) appeals the district court’s denial, as untimely, of his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition filed in 1999. Petitioner’s initial petition, filed pro se, alleged various ineffective assistance of counsel claims. After counsel had been appointed and after the statute of limitations had passed, petitioner moved to amend his petition by adding a new claim alleging that the state had failed to disclose that petitioner had been serving as a government informant against the alleged victim of his crimes, thus violating Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The district court denied petitioner’s motion, ruling that the Brady claim did not relate back to the date of the original petition within the meaning of Rule 15(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Under this court’s recent decision in Felix v. Mayle, 379 F.3d 612 (9th Cir.2004), however, petitioner’s Brady claim does relate back to the date of his original petition. In Felix , this court joined the Seventh Circuit in holding that under Rule 15(c)(2) “the proper ‘conduct, transaction, or occurrence’ in a…