Baggs v. Terrell et al

Filing 19

ORDER AND REASONS granting 12 Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and that the amended petition SHALL be filedon or before 5/23/2012. FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before 6/25/2012, the respondent SHALL f ile a supplemental memorandum in opposition to Baggss amended petition. FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before 6/25/2012, Warden Terrells counsel SHALL present to the Pro Se Unit in the Clerk of Courts Office a supplemental volume(s) to the state court record, from the trail court, appellate court, and the Louisiana Supreme Court records.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 4/24/2012. (caa, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KURT BAGGS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 09-6808

TERRY TERRELL, WARDEN ALLEN
CORRECTIONAL CENTER

SECTION “S”(4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Rec. Doc. No. 12) filed by the petitioner, Kurt Baggs, noticed for hearing before the Court
on April 18, 2012. Baggs requests leave to amend his federal petition for habeas corpus relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The respondent has not filed an opposition to the motion.
I.

Factual and Procedural Background
Baggs, with retained counsel, filed his § 2254 petition in this Court on October 14, 2009,

challenging his October 13, 2008 pleas of guilty to two fourth offense charges for driving while
intoxicated (under the influence of drugs), in St. Tammany Parish Case Numbers 403896 and
425694.1 He was sentenced that same day to serve ten years at hard labor on each charge to run
consecutively.2

1

Rec. Doc. No. 1, p. 3.

2

Id.

Baggs did not appeal his guilty pleas or the sentences.3 Instead, just one day prior to filing
this federal petition, on October 13, 2009, Baggs reportedly filed two state applications for postconviction relief in which he raised ineffective assistance of counsel, indeterminate sentence, and
denial of individualized sentencing consideration.4
His counsel then filed this federal petition on October 14, 2009, raising the following grounds
for relief: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to present evidence of Baggs’s prior medical
history or prescription drugs use; (2) indeterminate sentence based on the consecutive assignment of
the sentences at the same time; (3) no opportunity for proportionality assessment where there was no
individual appraisal of the appropriateness and proportionality of the sentences; (4) cumulative errors
by counsel amount to ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to obtain prior medical records; (5)
evidentiary hearing requested; and (6) Stay and abeyance requested.
On February 19, 2010, the respondent filed an answer and memorandum in opposition to
Baggs’s petition raising his failure to exhaust state court remedies.5 Although this was not a mixed
petition, Baggs thereafter moved this Court, without opposition, to stay the federal petition and the
request was granted by the District Judge.6
Upon pursuing the reopening of this case on April 4, 2012, the Court was called upon to
consider Baggs’s motion seeking leave to file an amended petition based on “developments” and

3

Id.

4

Id.

5

Rec. Doc. Nos. 7, 8.

6

Rec. Doc. Nos. 9, 10.
2

“additional procedural history.”7 Baggs also requests an additional 90 days to file the amended
pleading.
II.

Standards of Review
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, permits application of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure in habeas cases “to the extent that [the civil rules] are not inconsistent with any
statutory provisions or [the habeas] rules.” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 654 (2005) (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11); see also Fed. Rule Civ. P. 81(a)(2) (The civil rules “are applicable to proceedings for
. . . habeas corpus.”) In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 2242 specifically provides that habeas applications
“may be amended . . . as provided in the rules of procedure applicable to civil actions.” Therefore,
the Court can utilize the parameters of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 when considering motions to amend a
habeas petition. Mayle, 545 U.S. at 655.
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the amendment of pleadings. It
provides that leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Id. This and
other federal rules “reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by
counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to
facilitate a proper decision on the merits.” Conley v Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957).
Rule 15(a) evinces a liberal amendment policy and a motion to amend should not be denied
absent a substantial reason to do so. See Jacobsen v Osborne, 133 F.3d 315, 318 (5the Cir. 1998).
However, leave to amend is by no means automatic. Addington v Farmer’s Elevator Mut. Ins. Co.,
650 F.2d 663, 666 (5th Cir. 1981). The decision to grant or deny a motion for leave to amend lies
within the sound discretion of the trial court. Id.
7

Rec. Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 15.
3

In exercising its discretion, the trial court may consider such factors as “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, and futility of the amendment.” Gregory v Mitchell, 634 F.2d 199, 203 (5th Cir. 1981).
Leave to amend should be denied when doing so is required for fairness to the party opposing the
motion for leave to amend. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltime Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (1971).
III.

Analysis
Baggs, through counsel, seeks to amend his petition to include additional procedural history

of and substantive claims raised in his applications for post-conviction relief in the state courts.8
Baggs has not submitted a proposed pleading, nor has he provided any details or specificity of what
he intends to add to his petition other than these broad statements.
Nevertheless, the Court finds that it would be beneficial, and not prejudicial, to this
proceeding to allow Baggs to amend his original petition to provide a summary of the state postconviction proceedings and a designation of the particular substantive arguments which have been
exhausted and which he now intends to pursue here. Baggs is reminded that the United States
Supreme Court has held that an amended habeas petition, which adds discrete claims unrelated to
those raised in the original petition, and which is filed after expiration of the federal limitations
period, does not relate back to the filing date of the original petition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c).
Mayle, 545 U.S. at 662-63. Because two and one-half years have passed since the filing of his
original petition by counsel, Baggs is limited in his presentation of the amended claims by the scope
of the claims and arguments already raised in the original petition.
8

Rec. Doc. No. 12, p.1; Rec. Doc. No. 12-2, p. 1
4

The Court further finds that 90 days is an excessively long period which will serve only to
further delay the proceedings in this case. The recent history does not appear to be complicated, and
there is nothing counsel can add to this petition that was not already presented to the state courts. See
Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011) (the federal courts’ review under § 2254 is limited
to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claims). The Court finds 90 days
to be unreasonably long, especially considering the fact that the respondent must be given time to
respond to the amended petition and to supplement the state court records. The Court, therefore, will
allow Baggs 30 days to file the amended petition. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Baggs’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Rec. Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED and that the amended petition SHALL be filed
on or before May 23, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before June 25, 2012, the respondent, Warden
Terry Terrell, SHALL file a supplemental memorandum in opposition to Baggs’s amended petition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before June 25, 2012, Warden Terrell’s counsel
SHALL present to the Pro Se Unit in the Clerk of Court’s Office a supplemental volume(s) to the
state court record to provide this Court with certified copies of any and all state court pleadings,
transcripts, and rulings filed and/or issued on or after December 13, 2009, from the trial court,
appellate court, and the Louisiana Supreme Court records.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 24th day of April, 2012.

__________________________________________
KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5