Wilson v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Alter/Amend/Supplement Pleadings (Written Opinion). Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 11/17/2021. (JEN)

CASE 0:21-cv-00849-WMW-KMM Doc. 18 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Javece Wilson,
Case No. 0:21-cv-849 (WMW/KMM)
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
Bureau of Prisons et al.,
Respondents.

This matter is before the Court on Javece Wilson’s Motion to Amend his Petition
for Writ of Habeas corpus, as well as a letter request to further amend. 1 [ECF Nos. 7–8].
Mr. Wilson seeks to add a number of factual allegations and arguments to his Petition.
For the following reasons, the Court grants Mr. Wilson’s motion and letter request.
In his motion, Mr. Wilson requests leave to supplement his petition with five
pages of additional factual allegations and arguments, as well as caselaw and authority
for those arguments. Under the statute governing habeas petitions, amendments to such
petitions are allowed “as provided in the applicable rules of civil procedure.” Clemmons
v. Delo, 117 F.3d 680, 686 (8th Cir. 1999) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2422). Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a) provides that “a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of

In his Reply memorandum addressing the merits of his Petition, Mr. Wilson also
appears to request appointed counsel. [ECF No. 16]. To the extent that this could be
construed as a separate motion to appoint counsel, Mr. Wilson’s request is hereby
denied.
1

1

CASE 0:21-cv-00849-WMW-KMM Doc. 18 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 3

course within . . . 21 days after serving it.” Mr. Wilson’s Motion to Amend was filed on
April 16, 2021—21 days after filing his original petition. Therefore, he may amend his
petition as a matter of course—that is, without seeking leave from the opposing parties
or the Court. Schlegel v. Rios, 19-cv-338 (SRN/ECW), 2019 WL 3417053, at *1 (D. Minn.
June 18, 2019).
On April 28, 2021, Mr. Wilson filed a letter in which he also seeks to add to his
petition that he suffered from tuberculosis during the relevant period, as well as a case
citation for the proposition that “a person afflicted with tuberculosis is a handicapped
individual within the meaning of 504.” [ECF No. 8]. Because it was filed after the 21-day
period, the Court construes this letter as a request for leave to further amend the
Petition. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be
liberally construed . . . .” (quotation omitted)).
“A denial of leave to amend may be justified by undue delay, bad faith on the
part of the moving party, futility of the amendment or unfair prejudice to the opposing
party.” Amrine v. Brooks, 522 F.3d 823, 833 (8th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). Leave to
amend to add new claims may be denied where those claims have nothing to do with
the original complaint or would be inefficient and possibly confusing. See Brown v.
Wallace, 957 F.2d 564, 566 (8th Cir. 1992). While the thrust of Mr. Wilson’s petition is
often difficult to discern, he does appear to allege, among other things, unequal
treatment on the basis of disability. Therefore, the Court finds that the proposed short

2

CASE 0:21-cv-00849-WMW-KMM Doc. 18 Filed 11/17/21 Page 3 of 3

amendment is sufficiently relevant and would not cause undue delay or prejudice to the
Respondents. Accordingly, Mr. Wilson’s request to amend [ECF No. 8] is GRANTED.
Further, while Local Rule 15.1 requires that, absent a contrary ruling from the
Court, an amended pleading “be complete in itself and must not incorporate by
reference any prior pleading,” the Court will not require Mr. Wilson to file a new
petition. With his motion and letter, Mr. Wilson does not seek to remove or change any
part of his original petition—only to add to it. Mr. Wilson is incarcerated and filing pro
se, and the Court is cognizant of the difficulties that would accompany combining
several handwritten documents into a single pleading under those circumstances.
Accordingly, the Court will consider the original petition and the contents of the
Motion to Amend and letter in the Report and Recommendation accompanying this
Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States Magistrate Judge

Date: November 17, 2021

3