Morrow

AMENDED MEMORANDUM *

The memorandum disposition filed August 5, 2005, is amended in full as follows:

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.

*2 In accordance with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mayle v. Felix, — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 2562 , 162 L.Ed.2d 582 (2005), we affirm the district court’s ruling. Petitioner’s Brady claim and his initially filed ineffective…