Summary
denying motion to amend where petitioner added nothing of substance to his claims and merely provided numerous citations to caselaw while repeating the assertions of his previous submissions
Summary of this case from Ruggiero v. WayOpinion
00 Civ. 1395 (JGK)(KNF)
October 16, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Dejon McInis' ("McInis") motion, made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), to file an amended habeas corpus petition. Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief was brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent has not opposed the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
II. BACKGROUND
Petitioner made an application for a writ of habeas corpus in which he alleged that the trial evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for robbery in the first degree. Thereafter, petitioner moved to amend the petition and also submitted a memorandum of law in support of his habeas corpus petition. The motion to amend stated: "The evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to establish that petitioner acted in concert with [his co-defendants] to rob a liquor store by arranging for the so-called getaway vehicle." Petitioner stated further: "Basically, the people's theory of the petitioner's guilt is not only circumstantial, but pure speculation, arising from suspicion." The motion included a detailed statement in support of petitioner's claim that he was convicted on the basis of insufficient evidence.
Petitioner's memorandum of law in support of his habeas corpus petition contained a table of authorities, a preliminary statement, and a lengthy argument in favor of petitioner's sufficiency of the evidence claim. The assertions contained in the argument section of petitioner's memorandum of law are essentially the same as those presented in his motion to amend the petition. In September 2000, the assigned district judge granted a motion to amend the petition. Petitioner now seeks to file a second amended petition "to add additional information."
III. DISCUSSION
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to amend a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; Davis v. Artuz, No. 00 Civ. 2874, 2001 WL 1006723, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); Fama v. Comm'r of Correctional Servs., 69 F. Supp.2d 388, 393 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) provides that "[a] party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is . . . . Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading by leave of the court . . . and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires."
The determination to grant or deny a motion to amend a complaint is within the discretion of the Court. See New York State Nat'l Org. for Women v. Cuomo, 182 F.R.D. 30, 36 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). However, there must be good reason to deny such a motion. See Acito v. Imcera Group Inc., 47 F.3d 47, 55 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing S.S. Silberblatt, Inc. v. East Harlem Pilot Block Bldg.1 Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 608 F.2d 28, 42 [2d Cir. 1979]). Futility of the amendment is a valid reason to deny the motion. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 5. Ct. 227, 230 (1962); Aequitron Medical Inc., v. CBS Inc., No. 93 Civ. 950, 1994 WL 414361, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 1994).
In the instant case, the petitioner seeks to amend his petition for a second time in order "to add additional information." A review of petitioner's motion to amend the petition reveals, however, that nothing of substance has been added to the claims petitioner made previously concerning the sufficiency of the evidence adduced at his trial. In the supporting papers attached to his motion, petitioner provides numerous citations to case law and repeats many of the assertions included in his previous submissions. No new claims or substantive information relevant to the petition for habeas corpus relief has been provided. See Brock v. Artuz, No. 99 Civ. 1903, 2000 WL 1611010, at *6 n. 7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2000) (denying motion to amend habeas corpus petition where the proposed amendment, inter alia, did not raise any new claims). Therefore, under the circumstances, an amendment of the petition is not warranted.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, petitioner's application to amend his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
SO ORDERED: