(HC) Ngugi v. Lyons et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PETER WACHANIA NGUGI,
Petitioner,
v.
TODD M. LYONS, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 1:25-cv-01783-KES-EPG-HC
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO AMEND, DIRECTING
PETITIONER TO FILE ECF No. 18-1 AS
SECOND AMENDED PETITION,
VACATING HEARING SET FOR MARCH
27, 2026, AND SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE
(ECF No. 18)
Petitioner, represented by counsel, is a federal immigration detainee proceeding with a
petition of writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On February 19, 2026, Petitioner
filed the instant motion for leave to file a second amended petition. (ECF No. 18.)
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it,
or “if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a
responsive pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005) (noting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15 is applicable to habeas proceedings). Leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so
requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, the Court may decline to grant leave to amend “if
there is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,
repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’”
Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013)
(quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
Here, Petitioner has moved for leave to file a second amended petition “to add additional
information about Petitioner’s bond hearing before the immigration court and add claims for
relief for violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1255 and the Accardi doctrine and due process based on the
prior and new allegations.” (ECF No. 18 at 3.) Respondents have indicated that they do not
oppose the motion to amend. (Id.) As there is no evidence of “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or]
futility of amendment,” Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, the Court finds that justice requires granting
leave to amend.
“Pursuant to section 636, magistrate judges may hear and determine nondispositive
matters, but not dispositive matters[.]” Mitchell v. Valenzuela, 791 F.3d 1166, 1168 (9th Cir.
2015) (citing Hunt v. Pliler, 384 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 2004)). “To determine whether a
motion is dispositive, we have adopted a functional approach that looks to the effect of the
motion, in order to determine whether it is properly characterized as dispositive or non-
dispositive of a claim or defense of a party.” Mitchell, 791 F.3d at 1168–69 (internal quotation
marks omitted) (quoting Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2015)). “Under our
caselaw, to determine whether a magistrate judge’s ruling denying a motion is dispositive, we
examine whether the denial of the motion effectively disposes of a claim or defense or precludes
the ultimate relief sought.” Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing
S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1260 (9th Cir. 2013); Flam, 788 F.3d at 1046).
“It should be no surprise that the magistrate judge’s decision to grant a motion to amend
is not generally dispositive[.]” Bastidas, 791 F.3d at 1164. Given that granting the unopposed
motion to amend in the instant proceeding “[does] not dispose of any claims or defenses and
[does] not effectively deny . . . any ultimate relief sought,” Mitchell, 791 F.3d at 1170 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted), the undersigned has authority to grant the motion.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:
1. Petitioner’s motion to amend (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED;
2. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file ECF No. 18-1 as the Second Amended Petition within
seven (7) days of the date of service of this order;
3. The hearing set for March 27, 2026, is VACATED;
4. Within FORTY-FIVE (45) days of the date of service of this order, Respondent SHALL
FILE a RESPONSE to the Second Amended Petition (“SAP”). See Rule 4, Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases;1 Cluchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1473–74 (9th Cir.
1985) (court has discretion to fix time for filing a response).2 A Response can be made by
filing one of the following:
A. AN ANSWER addressing the merits of the SAP. Any argument by Respondent
that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted a claim SHALL BE MADE in the
ANSWER but must also address the merits of the claim asserted.
B. A MOTION TO DISMISS the SAP.
5. Within FORTY-FIVE (45) days after service of this order, Respondent SHALL FILE
any and all transcripts or other documents necessary for the resolution of the issues
presented in the SAP. See Rule 5(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The
transcripts or other documents shall only be filed electronically and, to the extent
practicable, provided in Optical Character Recognition (“OCR”) format.
Respondent shall not file a hard copy of the transcripts or other documents unless
so ordered by this Court.
6. If Respondent files an Answer to the SAP, Petitioner MAY FILE a Traverse within
THIRTY (30) days of the date of service of Respondent’s Answer. If no Traverse is
filed, the Petition and Answer are deemed submitted at the expiration of the thirty days.
///
1 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases may apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
2 See also Schwarz v. Meinberg, 478 F. App’x 394, 395 (9th Cir. 2012) (rejecting petitioner’s contention
that district court erred by permitting a time limit exceeding the limits specified in 28 U.S.C. § 2243).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
7. If Respondent files a Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner SHALL FILE an Opposition or
Statement of Non-Opposition within TWENTY-ONE (21) days of the date of service of
Respondent’s Motion. Any Reply to an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss SHALL be
filed within FOURTEEN (14) days after the Opposition has been filed in CM/ECF. The
Motion to Dismiss will be deemed submitted when the time to reply has expired.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2026 /s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE