Chambers v. Secretary, Department of Corrections , 397 F. App'x 520 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                           [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________                    FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 09-15826                  ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    Non-Argument Calendar             SEPTEMBER 13, 2010
    ________________________                 JOHN LEY
    CLERK
    D. C. Docket No. 08-00176-CV-T-17-EAJ
    PATRICK A. CHAMBERS,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Respondents-Appellees.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (September 13, 2010)
    Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Petitioner appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    petition for habeas corpus relief. We issued a certificate of appealability on one
    issue:
    Whether the district court erred in declining to address the additional
    [sixth] ground of relief, first mentioned in a reply brief, without sua
    sponte affording [petitioner] an opportunity to properly present the
    constitutional claim.
    We consider petitioner’s reference to his sixth ground of relief in his reply
    brief not as an attempt to raise it in the brief, but as an indication that petitioner
    believed that he had raised it in his § 2254 petition on page 11B. The district court
    apparently did not consider the reference as such. If the court had construed the
    reference as petitioner’s request for leave to amend the petition, we are satisfied
    that the court would have granted leave. A “court should freely give leave to
    amend when justice so requires, and leave should not be denied absent a
    substantial reason. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Espy v. Wainwright, 
    734 F. 2d 748
    , 750
    (11th Cir. 1984). There was no reason—such as undue delay or bad faith on
    petitioner’s part—to deny leave here.
    To the end that we may avoid having to consider this case more than once
    on appeal, see generally Clisby v. Jones, 
    960 F.2d 925
     (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc),
    we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand the case with the instruction
    that the district court entertain the sixth ground for relief referred to in petitioner’s
    2
    reply brief.
    VACATED and REMANDED, with instruction.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-15826

Citation Numbers: 397 F. App'x 520

Judges: Tjoflat, Martin, Anderson

Filed Date: 9/13/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024