Thompson

(HC) Mulholland v. Thompson

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 17, 20232:21-cv-01364California275 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GREGG MULHOLLAND, No. 2:21-CV-1364-DJC-DMC-P Petitioner,

ORDER

v. PAUL THOMPSON., Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On July 19, 2023, Petitioner filed an amended petition after Respondent had moved to dismiss, without stipulation, and without leave of Court, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Where a party files an amended pleading without the right to do so, it is properly stricken by the Court. See, e.g., Hardin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 813 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1181 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (striking fourth amended complaint: “If an amended pleading cannot be made as of right and is filed without leave of court or consent of the opposing party, the amended pleading is a nullity and without legal effect.”); Sexton v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv- 00898-TLN-AC, 2022 WL 976914 (E.D. Cal. March 31, 2022)…

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.