Allen v. Steele
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED. [Doc. 30.] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file his Reply Brief no later than October 23, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners Motion Requesting Leave to File Amended Petition is DENIED. [Doc. 31.] 30 31 ( Response to Court due by 10/23/2015.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 6/22/15. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Case No. 4:13-CV-2329 SNLJ-NAB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Craig Allen’s Motion for Extension of Time
and Motion Requesting Leave to File Amended Petition. [Docs. 30, 31.] Respondent has not
responded to either motion and the time to do so has now passed. For the following reasons, the
Court will deny Petitioner’s Motion Requesting Leave to File Amended Petition and grant
Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time.
The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) imposes a one
year time limit for applications for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Federal habeas proceedings initiated by state
prisoners are governed by the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Habeas
petitions may be amended or supplemented as provided in the rules of procedure applicable to
civil actions. 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also Rule 12 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts (federal rules of civil procedure, to the extent that they are not
inconsistent with any statutory provisions or rules governing habeas cases, may be applied in
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that the court should freely give leave to
amend when justice so requires. 1 Fed. Rule Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Claims in an amended habeas
petition filed after the expiration of the one-year limitations period may not be considered if they
do not “relate back” to the date of the original habeas petition.” Cross v. Russell, No. 4:13-CV316 ACL, 2014 WL 5514387 at *1 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 31, 2014). Amendments made after the
statute of limitations has run relate back to the date of the original pleading if the original and
amended pleadings arise out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out- or attempted to be
set out- in the original pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B). In a habeas proceeding, the
original pleading to which Rule 15 refers is a petition. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005).
“So long as the original and amended petitions state claims that are tied to a common core of
operative facts, relation back will be in order.” Mayle, 545 U.S. at 664. The United States
Supreme Court has ruled that the relation back doctrine is not so broad as to allow the revival of
claims filed outside of the one-year time limit of § 2244 based solely on the fact that they relate
to the same trial, conviction, or sentence as a timely filed claim. Id. at 662.
In this case, Petitioner requests leave to add one claim. Petitioner’s proposed additional
Ground Thirteen states that Petitioner was denied due process of law, because the prosecutor
failed to correct false statements made by witness Joe Wines; thereby presenting perjured
testimony. At first glance, this claim appears to be similar to Petitioner’s Ground Six of the
original petition. But, these claims are distinct. In Ground Six, Petitioner asserts a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to impeach witness Joe Wines based on prior
inconsistent statements. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is different than a claim
Petitioner must seek leave from the Court to amend his petition, because a party may amend a pleading as a matter
of course within 21 days after serving it or if a response is required, within 21 days after a responsive pleading. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Petitioner filed his petition on November 18, 2013 and Respondent filed a response on May 26,
2014. Therefore, Petitioner is beyond the time limits for filing an amended petition without consent of Respondent
or leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
against a prosecutor offering perjured testimony. See McKay v. Purkett, 255 F.3d 660, 661 (8th
Cir. 2001) (amended complaint challenging conduct of counsel does not relate back to claims
challenging conduct of trial court in post-conviction proceedings). Therefore, the Court will
deny Petitioner leave to file an amended petition adding this claim.
Petitioner also seeks an extension of time to October 23, 2015 to file his Reply Brief.
Petitioner asserts that he has limited access to the law library and computers. The Court will
grant Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time.
IT HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time is
GRANTED. [Doc. 30.]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file his Reply Brief no later than
October 23, 2015.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion Requesting Leave to File
Amended Petition is DENIED. [Doc. 31.]
Dated this 22nd day of June, 2015.
/s/ Nannette A. Baker
NANNETTE A. BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?