United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JASON L. SHADLE, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on petitioner Jason L.
Shadle's Motion (Doc. 26) for Leave to Supplement/Amend
his § 2255 petition based on Mathis v. United
States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016) (holding that the
“application of ACCA involves, and involves only,
comparing elements. Courts must ask whether the crime of
conviction is the same as, or narrower than, the relevant
generic offense.”) The government filed a timely
response (Doc. 27) in opposition.
the time for amendment as a matter of right has passed,
whether the petitioner should be allowed to amend his
complaint is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(2). Rule 15(a)(2) provides that pleadings may be amend
only with the opposing parties' written consent, which
the petitioner has not obtained, or leave of court, which the
Court should freely give when justice requires. A court
should allow amendment of a pleading except where there is
undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive on the part of the
movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, or futility of the
amendment. Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546,
562 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Airborne Beepers & Video,
Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 666 (7th
Cir. 2007)). An amendment is futile if it would not survive a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, General
Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d
1074, 1085 (7th Cir. 1997), or a motion for summary judgment,
Bethany Pharmacal Co. v. QVC, Inc., 241 F.3d 854,
860 (7th Cir. 2001).
government argues that the amended claim is time barred. A
petitioner seeking relief under § 2255 must file his
motion within the one-year statute of limitations set forth
in § 2255(f). Prisoners used to be able to file motions
under § 2255 at any time during their sentences.
However, on April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 104-132, tit. I, §
106 (codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a) & (b),
2255(f)), which added a one-year limitations period for a
motion attacking a sentence. The one-year limitations period
runs from the latest of four events:
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion
created by governmental action in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the
movant was prevented from making a motion by such
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially
recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly
recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.
is no question that petitioner's original pleading was
timely filed; however, the AEDPA does not address amendments
to a § 2255 motion. Therefore, the Court must look to
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with regard to leave to
amend. The Seventh Circuit has held that:
This rule [FRCP 15(a)] provides that even after the defendant
has filed an answer, and the plaintiff's absolute right
to amend has lapsed, the court still should grant leave
“freely ... when justice so requires.” No one
supposes that an amendment to the complaint in pending civil
litigation violates principles of claim preclusion (res
judicata), even though an identical claim raised in a
separate suit would be precluded. Just so with amendments and
the AEDPA. A prisoner receives one complete round of
litigation, which as in other civil suits includes the
opportunity to amend a pleading before judgment.
Johnson v. U.S., 196 F.3d 802, 805 (7th Cir.
it is the government's position that petitioner's
amendment does not assert, “a claim or defense that
arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out
- or attempted to be set out - in the original
pleading” and is thus time-barred. Fed. R. Civ.P.
15(b). However, petitioner did allege in his initial petition
that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file
objections to the presentencing report's determination
that he was a career offender and the holding in the
Mathis case does involve the statutory application
of the ACCA.
also cites to Rodriguez v. United States of America,
286 F.3d 972 (7th Cir. 2002) as controlling in
this matter, however, the petitioner in that matter attempted
to amend after a judgment was entered. “[T]he
time to amend the petition expires once the district court
makes its decision. Final judgment marks a terminal point.
Phillips v. U.S., 668 F.3d 433, 435 (7th Cir. 2012),
as amended on denial of reh'g and reh'g en
banc (Feb. 21, 2012). Although fully briefed, no
judgment or ruling with regard to the petitioner's
original § 2255 has been entered by the Court.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) allows that the Court,
“may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a
supplemental pleading setting out any transaction,
occurrence, or event that ...