McLeod v. Culliver (INMATE 3)
ORDER denying 16 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 16 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 8/25/09. (br, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION J A C K IE McLEOD, # 116274-A, P e t i t io n e r , v GRANTT CULLIVER, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil Action No. 1:09cv634-ID (WO)
ORDER ON MOTION P e titio n e r has filed a motion to amend his petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. N o . 16) Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) instructs that leave of the court to amend pleadings "shall be f re e ly given when justice so requires." Nevertheless, a motion to amend may be denied on " n u m e r o u s grounds, such as undue delay, undue prejudice to the defendants, and futility of th e amendment." Maynard v. Bd. of Regents of Universities of Fla. Dept. of Educ., 342 F.3d 1 2 8 1 , 1287 (11 th Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added). T h e court's records indicate that Petitioner has filed a previous habeas petition p u rs u a n t to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the same convictions and s e n te n c e s he challenges in his present petition. McLeod v. Sutton, et al., Civil Action Nos. 1 :9 5 c v 1 1 8 1 & 1:95cv1219 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 24, 1996). In that previous habeas action, this court determined Petitioner's petition was due to be denied because he procedurally defaulted o n each of his claims for relief and failed to show cause and prejudice or a fundamental m is c a rr ia g e of justice excusing his procedural default. See Civil Action No. 1:95cv1181 -
D o c . Nos. 31 & 33. It is clear from the instant pleadings filed by Petitioner that he has not received an o rd e r from a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this c o u rt to consider a successive application for habeas relief. Because this undertaking is a s u c c es s iv e habeas corpus petition and because Petitioner has no permission from the E le v e n th Circuit to file a successive habeas petition, this court lacks jurisdiction to grant any re lie f . See Gilreath v. State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 273 F.3d 932, 933 (11 th Cir. 2 0 0 1 ); Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088, 1089 (11 th Cir. 1997). Thus, Petitioner's attempted a m e n d m e n t is futile as a matter of law. Accordingly, it is O R D E R E D that the motion to amend (Doc. No. 16) be and is hereby DENIED. It is further O R D E R E D that the motion for an evidentiary hearing contained in Petitioner's instant p le a d in g (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED. D o n e this 25 th day of August, 2009.
/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?