Fuller v. USA

Filing 22

ORDER denying 19 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 20 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 1/17/12. (mtm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MONTEZ L. FULLER,
Petitioner,
v.

No. 10-cv-267-DRH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Pending before the Court are petitioner Montez L. Fuller’s motions for leave
to amend 2255 petition pursuant to Fed. R. Civil [sic] P. 15(a) and (c) (Doc. 19)
and for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (Doc. 20). The Court
DENIES petitioner’s motions.
BACKGROUND
On April 12, 2010, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, petitioner filed a motion
to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence (Doc. 1). The government responded
to petitioner’s motion on January 25, 2011 (Doc. 10). Petitioner did not timely
reply.
Thus, on March 28, 2011, petitioner motioned for leave to respond to the
government’s response (Doc. 12). However, the Court denied petitioner’s motion
pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), as he did not file a reply brief within fourteen days
of the government’s response and did not state “exceptional circumstances”
Page 1 of 3

warranting a reply (Doc. 13) (citing SDIL-LR 7.1(c)).

Since the Court’s initial

denial of petitioner’s request, he has twice unsuccessfully attempted to
supplement his petition (See Docs. 14 and 17).

The Court denied the

aforementioned requests, as petitioner did not present “a change in the law or
facts that occurred after the filing of [his] brief” (See Doc. 15) (citing SDIL-LR
7.1(c)). Petitioner merely sought to supplement his petition with case law decided
prior to the filing of his Section 2255 petition. Moreover, petitioner argued he did
not initially reply to the government’s response due to his preoccupation with
“other legal matters” (See Doc. 17).
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND DENIED
Instantly, the Court must deny petitioner’s third attempt to supplement his
Section 2255 petition.

Petitioner seeks to supplement his petition with a

multitude of facts known prior to his Section 2255’s filing (See Doc. 19).
Incorporating the reasoning of the Court’s previous denials, the Court must again
deny petitioner’s motion, as he has not demonstrated “a change in the law or facts
that occurred after the filing of [his] brief” necessitates supplemental authority.
See SDIL-LR 7.1(c).

Moreover, petitioner has once again failed to cite

“exceptional circumstances” requiring the filing of a reply brief.

See id.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES petitioner’s motion for leave to amend 2255
petition pursuant to Fed. R. Civil [sic] P. 15(a) and (c) (Doc. 19).

Page 2 of 3

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
Additionally, petitioner requests that the Court reconsider its August 15,
2011 Order denying petitioner’s motion for leave to amend his Section 2255
petition (Doc. 20). Petitioner argues the Court’s denial “misapplied the law,” as it
did not grant petitioner leave to supplement his petition with attached exhibits
and affidavits. As stated above, the Court denied petitioner’s request due to his
failure to comply with the applicable local rules; rules the Court had gratuitously
quoted to petitioner previously (See Docs. 13 and 15).

As petitioner has not

stated adequate reasons necessitating a different outcome, the Court DENIES
petitioner’s motion (Doc. 20).
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court DENIES petitioner’s motion for
leave to amend 2255 petition pursuant to Fed. R. Civil [sic] P. 15(a) and (c) (Doc.
19). Additionally, it DENIES petitioner’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (Doc. 20).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 17th day of January, 2012.

David R.
Herndon
2012.01.17
16:42:28 -06'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Page 3 of 3