Opinion
18 Civ. 0932 (KMK) (PED)
08-03-2021
WAYNE C. JAMES, Petitioner, v. DANIELLE DILL, Executive Director, [1]Respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER
PAUL E. DAVISON, U.S.M.J.
On or about January 29, 2018, pro se petitioner Wayne C. James filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his continued confinement at Central New York Psychiatric Center. Dkt. #1. On April 13, 2020, petitioner filed an Amended Petition (Dkt. #36) without leave of the court. He filed a Second Amended Petition on November 4, 2020, again without leave of the court. I construe the Amended Petition and Second Amended Petition as applications for leave to amend. By letter dated April 5, 2021, James sought leave to amend. Dkt. #42. Petitioner's applications for leave to amend are before me pursuant to an Order of Reference dated February 16, 2018 (Dkt. #5). For the reasons that follow, petitioner's applications are DENIED.
The Second Amended Petition appears on the docket without an assigned docket number. On February 3, 2021, James fried a letter and attached a copy of his proposed Second Amended Petition. Dkt. #39.
Copies of all unpublished cases available only in electronic form cited herein have been mailed to petitioner. See Lebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76, 78 (2d Cir. 2009). A Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is not required because denial of plaintiffs' motion to amend is not dispositive of any existing claims. See Jean-Laurent v. Wilkerson, 461 Fed.Appx. 18, 25-26 (2d Cir. 2012) (Report and Recommendation required where Magistrate Judge granted plaintiffs motion to file a second amended complaint to the extent it did not contain any state law claims, which amounted to dismissal of plaintiff s existing state law claims that had survived a motion to dismiss); see also e g Erdogan v. County, No. 10-CV-05837, 2014 WL 1236679, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25 2014) (Memorandum and Order denying plaintiffs motion to amend the comp amt to add two additional defendants); In re Mission Constr. Lilig., Nos. 10 Civ. 4262 10 Civ. 9344, 11 . Civ 1565, 2013 WL 4710377, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2013) (Opinion and Order denying motion join a defendant and file a second amended complaint).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), the Court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Notwithstanding this ordinarily lenient standard, the “denial of leave to amend has long been held proper” for reasons such as “undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility.” Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC, 797 F.3d 160, 190 (2d Cir. 2015). “[I]t is within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend.” McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007).
Here, petitioner's proposed amendments would be futile. James seeks habeas relief on one ground: he claims that his parole hearing was unlawful and, therefore, his civil confinement violates Due Process because he was a parolee and not a “detained sex offender” at the time the State initiated civil management proceedings. For reasons stated in a Report and Recommendation to Judge Karas, issued contemporaneously with this Decision and Order, James's claim is plainly meritless. His proposed amendments raise no new claims; James proffers additional information which purportedly supports his allegation that his parole revocation was improper. However, the newly proffered information does not alter James's misunderstanding of state law which anchors his habeas claim (and renders it meritless).
Accordingly, James's applications for leave to amend are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.