Boyd v. USA

Filing 13

ORDER denying 12 Motion re: supplement. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 9/8/2011. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(bsw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:10cv213-RJC
(3:07cr45-1-RJC)
ANTHONY EUGENE BOYD,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s Supplement in Support of § 2255
Petition. (Doc. No. 12).
Petitioner filed a § 2255 Motion setting forth several claims, including ineffective
assistance of counsel. (Doc. No. 1). Respondent filed an Answer with an attached Affidavit
from Petitioner’s former attorney. (Doc. No. 6-1).
In the supplement, Petitioner attached a copy of an Opinion that was released in
September 2010 by the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and
Professional Responsibility. (Doc. No. 12 at 3). The Opinion suggests that it is a violation of the
ABA’s rules on confidentiality for a defense attorney to unilaterally furnish any information
about the former client’s case to the prosecution in response to a claim of ineffective assistance
made by that former client. Petitioner claims the Opinion is “extremely vital to maybe a
violation” by the government and counsel.
Such a new claim must be considered under Rule 15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
which governs supplemental pleadings. A court may deny the addition of a claim based on
futility. United States v. Pittman, 209 F.3d 314, 317 (4th Cir. 2000). Because Petitioner has not

shown any reason to believe that an alleged violation of the ABA’s rules would amount to a
constitutional violation cognizable under § 2255, the Court finds the new claim to be futile.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that it Petitioner’s Supplement (Doc. No. 12) to is
DENIED.
Signed: September 8, 2011

2