Cabrera v. Bailey

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California struck Petitioner Omar Cabrera’s pro se supplemental petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that a represented litigant may not file pro se documents and that the attempted amendment required either the opposing party’s consent or the court’s leave.

Holdings

1. A litigant represented by counsel is not entitled to file documents with the court on his own behalf; the pro se supplemental petition was properly stricken on that basis.
2. After the time to amend as a matter of course has expired, a party may amend only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave; because Cabrera obtained neither, the supplemental petition was properly stricken.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a habeas petitioner represented by counsel may file a document pro se.
2. Whether the petitioner could amend his habeas petition by filing a supplemental petition without opposing-party consent or leave of court.

Disposition

other