Wise v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
ORDERED that 19 Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED; and that the US Attorney shall file a a supplemental response addressing the new claim asserted by Petitioner in the amendment to his § 2255 motion within thirty (30) days from the date of this order as further set out. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 3/10/2009. (cb, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION D A V I D DEJUAN WISE, P e titio n e r, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, R e sp o n d e n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil Action No. 2:08cv17-MHT (WO)
O R D E R ON MOTION P e titio n e r has filed a motion for leave to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to add a new claim. (Doc. No. 19.) Upon consideration of this motion, it is O R D E R E D that Petitioner's motion for leave to amend (Doc. No. 19) be and is h e re b y GRANTED. F u r th e r , the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama is ORDERED to file a supplemental response addressing the new claim asserted by P e titio n e r in the amendment to his § 2255 motion within thirty (30) days from the date of this o r d e r . If this court is barred from reviewing the petitioner's claims due to his failure to p ro p e rly preserve such claim, the government shall provide a factual and legal basis for the p ro c e d u ra l default argument. In addition, the government is advised that its response should c o n ta in a procedural history and all relevant information, including identification of the c la im s contained in Petitioner's original § 2255 motion, from which the court can determine th e applicability of the limitation period to the newly asserted claim.
In its supplemental response, the government should make specific reference to Rule 1 5 (c ), Fed.R.Civ.P., which provides that "[a]n amendment of a pleading relates back to the d a te of the original pleading when ... the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading a ro se out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading." Rule 1 5 (c )( 2 ), Fed.R.Civ.P. See Pruitt v. United States, 274 F.3d 1315, 1318-19 (11 th Cir. 2001) (a m e n d e d claims excluded from application of the limitation period only if they relate back to timely filed claims); Davenport v. United States, 217 F.3d 1341, 1344 (11 th Cir. 2000) (sam e). D o n e this 10 th day of March, 2009.
/s/Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 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?