Opinion
CIV 03-1435 LH/KBM, CR 00-1152 LH
April 15, 2004
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
The Magistrate Judge filed her Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition on March 4, 2004. See Doc. 6. Thereafter, she granted Defendant an extension in which to file his objections. See Docs. 9, 11. Having reviewed those objections de novo, I find them without merit and overrule them. I specifically note that Defendant's Baston argument, by his own admission, is not based on an assertion of discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges, and is otherwise unavailing regarding the venire claim he raises. See Doc. 11 at 4.
Along with his objections, Defendant also filed pleading captioned "Motion For Leave Of The Court To Amend Movant's Original Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion." See Doc. 10. However, all of the instances of ineffectiveness he seeks to raise could have been done so earlier.
I recognize that courts have an obligation to construe pro se pleadings liberally. E.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam). As a result, then, "'federal courts have long recognized that they have an obligation to look behind the label of a motion filed by a pro se inmate and determine whether the motion is, in effect, cognizable under a different remedial statutory framework.'" United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3rd Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624-25 (11th Cir. 1990)). Furthermore, a pro se litigant's characterization of his claims is not dispositive. E.g., Roman-Nose v. New Mexico Dept. of Human Servs., 967 F.2d 435, 437 (10th Cir. 1992).
It is equally true, however, that "[u]nder Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(f), '[a]ll pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.' Thus, the caption on a pleading does not constrain the court's treatment of a pleading." Sanders v. Yeager, 57 Fed. Appx. 381, 382 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing N. Alamo Water Supply Corp. v. City of San Juan, Tex., 90 F.3d 910, 918 (5th Cir. 1996); Hamlin v. Warren, 664 F.2d 29, 30 (4th Cir. 1981)). In the Tenth Circuit, theories raised for the first time in objections are deemed waived. Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996); see also e.g., United States v. Garfinkle, 261 F.3d 1030, 1031 (10th Cir. 2001) (§ 2255 case); Tracy v. Addison, 16 Fed. Appx. 928, 930 n. 4 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1022 (2002).
I find that Defendant's attempt to raise new claims at this juncture is a blatant attempt to circumvent this rule by captioning a pleading as a motion to amend. In my view, substantial justice dictates that I treat the pleading as objections raising new theories that are waived. C.f., Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 78 (3rd Cir. 1996) ("A litigant should not be able to evade the PLRA by masking as a mandamus petition a paper otherwise subject to the Act. We will, therefore, require that any action improperly styled as mandamus must meet the fee requirements of the PLRA. It is the nature of the document, rather than the label attached by the litigant, that controls."); Lee v. United States, 501 F.2d 494, 500 (8th Cir. 1974) ("We look to the essence of his complaint and do so, without controlling reference to the label or title of his pleadings, in order that we may determine whether the court had jurisdiction under any theory which might afford relief.) (internal quotations omitted).
Wherefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition ( Doc. 6) is ADOPTED;
2. Defendant's motion to amend ( Doc. 10) is characterized as objections to the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and DENIED AS WAIVED;
3. The § 2255 petition is dismissed with prejudice; and
4. A final order enter concurrently herewith.