Sloan v. Sellers

Filing 13

ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 12 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Carl Levert Sloan. The Court GRANTS Petitioners request to replace Respondent Sellers with Antoine Caldwell but DENIES Petitioners request to amend his petition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 10/26/2016. (maa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
CARL LEVERT SLOAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC SELLERS, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________

CV 115-118

ORDER
_________
Petitioner, an inmate incarcerated at Wilcox State Prison in Abbeville, Georgia, filed
the above-captioned petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to amend. 1 (Doc. no. 12.) For the reasons
stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Petitioner’s motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which governs amendment of pleadings, applies
to § 2254 petitions. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005). Thus, the Court will
apply a traditional Rule 15 analysis to Petitioner’s motion to amend. Specifically, Rule
15(a)(1) provides that:
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21
days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive
pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days
after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.
1

Although docketed as an “Amended Petition,” since a response has already been filed,
Petitioner must have permission from the Court to amend his petition. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2).

Because Petitioner’s motion to amend was filed more than twenty-one days after
Respondent’s answer to the § 2254 petition, he cannot amend as a matter of right under Rule
15(a)(1). If a party is not entitled to amend as a matter right under Rule 15(a)(1), then “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).
As a general rule, leave to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) is given freely. Saewitz
v. Lexington Ins. Co., 133 F. App’x 695, 699 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Foman v. Davis,
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). That said, leave to amend is not guaranteed, and a trial court may
deny such leave “in the exercise of its inherent power to manage the conduct of litigation
before it.” Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1263 (11th Cir. 2008). “In making this
determination, a court should consider whether there has been undue delay in filing, bad faith
or dilatory motives, prejudice to the opposing parties, and the futility of the amendment.”
Saewitz, 133 F. App’x at 699 (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).
Here, Petitioner seeks to amend his petition and replace Respondent Sellers with
Antoine Caldwell, the present Warden of Wilcox State Prison. Rule 2(a) of the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases provides that if the petitioner is “currently in custody under a statecourt judgment, the petition must name as respondent the state officer who has custody.”
Because Warden Caldwell is Petitioner’s present custodian, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s
request to replace Respondent Sellers with Antoine Caldwell. The Court DIRECTS the
CLERK to change Eric Sellers to Antoine Caldwell.

Petitioner also seeks to amend his petition to add the additional claim that several
2

typographical errors in the state habeas court’s opinion violated his due process rights
because the state habeas court “misrepresent[ed] . . . the evidence.” (Doc. no. 12, pp. 2-3.)
Petitioner takes issue with the state habeas court’s statement of procedural history in which
the state habeas court erroneously stated Petitioner was convicted of two counts of
aggravated battery, and four counts of cruelty to children when Petitioner was actually
convicted of one count of aggravated battery, one count of aggravated assault, and three
counts of cruelty to children. (Doc. no. 10-10, p. 2.) Petitioner asks this Court to consider
the state habeas court’s errors in ruling on his petition because Petitioner contends the
typographical errors supported his recidivist sentence. (See id. at 3.)
Here, allowing Petitioner to amend his motion to add this claim would be futile.
Petitioner’s claim does not warrant federal relief because it does not assert a violation of the
Constitution or law or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Leonard v.
Philbin, No. 1:15-CV-2491-WSD-RGV, 2016 WL 3227500, at *4 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2016)
(finding petitioner’s claim based on typographical error by Georgia Court of Appeals did not
state claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). The record is unequivocal that Petitioner was
convicted of one count of aggravated battery, one count of aggravated assault, and three
counts of cruelty to children; the state habeas court’s erroneous misstatements do not change
or affect Petitioner’s recidivist sentence, contrary to his contentions. Accordingly, because
the addition of this claim would be futile, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s request to amend

3

his petition to add this claim.
SO ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2016, at Augusta, Georgia.

4