United States v. Jones ( 2021 )

Case: 19-30110 Document: 00515715774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 22, 2021
No. 19-30110 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jock R. Jones,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:16-CV-396
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jock R. Jones, federal prisoner # 05118-095, pleaded guilty to
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was convicted following a
bench trial of carjacking and using a firearm during the commission of a crime
of violence. He was sentenced to a total of 384 months of imprisonment and
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-30110 Document: 00515715774 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2021
No. 19-30110
five years of supervised release. The district court denied Jones’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion, and it denied without prejudice his motion to supplement as
an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. We granted a certificate of
appealability on the issue whether the district court abused its discretion in
dismissing Jones’s motion to supplement as an unauthorized successive
§ 2255 motion.
Jones argues, and the Government agrees, that the district court
abused its discretion in denying his motion to supplement because his first
§ 2255 motion was still pending when he filed the motion. We review the
denial of leave to amend a § 2255 motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15 for abuse of discretion. United States v. Gonzalez, 592 F.3d 675,
678 n.2, 679 (5th Cir. 2009). “An erroneous legal conclusion constitutes an
abuse of discretion.” United States v. Saenz, 282 F.3d 354, 356 (5th Cir.
2002).
There is no authority supporting the district court’s determination
that the motion to supplement was a successive § 2255 motion. Cf. United
States v. Riascos, 76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1996). When a pro se litigant raises
a new issue for the first time in a pleading, the district court may construe it
as a motion to amend his § 2255 motion. Saenz, 282 F.3d at 356; Riascos, 76
F.3d at 94. Nothing in the record indicates undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory
motive on Jones’s part, and it is not clear that amending his § 2255 motion to
add the ineffective assistance claims would have been futile. See Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Jebaco, Inc. v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 587
F.3d 314, 322 (5th Cir. 2009). There is nothing to indicate that the
Government would have suffered prejudice if the district court had allowed
the amendment. These factors weigh in favor of granting the motion in the
interest of justice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Jebaco, Inc., 587 F.3d at 322;
Saenz, 282 F.3d at 356. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in
denying Jones’s motion to supplement his § 2255 motion. See Saenz, 282
2
Case: 19-30110 Document: 00515715774 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/22/2021
No. 19-30110
F.3d at 356; Riascos, 76 F.3d at 94-95. Accordingly, the district court’s
judgment is REVERSED IN PART as to the denial of Jones’s motion to
supplement his § 2255 motion, and the case is REMANDED to the district
court for further proceedings concerning the ineffective assistance of counsel
claims raised in Jones’s motion.
3