Castro v. Tanner
Filing
17
ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that 13 Motion Supplement Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (page 8) and 14 Second Motion Supplement Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus are DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (clm, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSE LIMA CASTRO
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 12-2049
ROBERT TANNER, CCE, WARDEN,
22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
SECTION “J”(4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are a Motion to Supplement Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Rec. Doc. No. 13, p. 8) and a Second Motion to Supplement Application for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Rec. Doc. No. 14) filed September 19, 2012, and October 10, 2012, respectively, by the
petitioner, Jose Lima Castro, requesting leave to supplement his federal petition for habeas corpus
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to include copies of pleadings filed in the state courts prior to
the filing of his federal petition.
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.
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).
A review of the two pending motions reveals that Castro is attempting to supplement his 288
page petition with an additional 103 pages of duplicitous and unnecessary copies of pleadings
associated with his efforts to obtain document copies in the state courts. Castro presents no
2
substantive argument in support of his claims. Instead he is seeking to only present addendums that
ultimately will be part of the state court record provided to the Court by the respondent. The Court
further notes that the materials reference events that occurred before the filing of the original petition
and could have been included in Castro’s original pleadings.
Castro’s supplemental materials are unnecessary and would be burdensome on the record
should their filing be allowed. Castro is placed on notice that it is unnecessary and inappropriate
for him to continue requesting leave to supplement the record with this type of documentation.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Castro’s Motion to Supplement Application for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Rec. Doc. No. 13, p. 8) and a Second Motion to Supplement Application for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Rec. Doc. No. 14) are DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 15th day of October, 2012.
__________________________________________
KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
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?