Alvin Roger Bellefleur v. United States , 489 F. App'x 323 ( 2012 )

Case: 11-13551 Date Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-13551
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 2:10-cv-14228-JEM ; 2:10-cr-14020-JEM-1
ALVIN ROGER BELLEFLEUR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 4, 2012)
Before HULL, WILSON, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alvin Roger Bellefleur, proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. In December 2010, a magistrate
Case: 11-13551 Date Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 2 of 4
judge recommended denial of the motion. Later that month, Bellefleur filed
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation along with a
motion to supplement the § 2255 motion pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. In April 2011, Bellefleur filed pro se a second motion to
supplement. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation in July 2011 and dismissed the § 2255 motion on the ground that
the claims brought therein were not supported by the record. The district court
denied all pending motions as moot, and in doing so denied the motions to amend
without explanation. On appeal, Bellefleur argues that the district court’s denial of
his motions to amend were an abuse of discretion.
We review a district court’s decision to deny a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint for an abuse of discretion. Baez v. Banc One Leasing Corp.,
348 F.3d 972, 973 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). When amendment is not
permitted as of right, “the court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice
so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see also Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d
1211, 1215 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (applying Rule 15(a) in the context of
§ 2255). A court must give a reason for denial of a motion to amend absent “any
apparent or declared reason—such as such as undue delay, bad faith or 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
2
Case: 11-13551 Date Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 3 of 4
of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230 (1962); see also id. (noting that the mandate to
freely grant motions to amend “is to be heeded”). “[O]utright refusal to grant the
leave [to amend] without any justifying reason appearing for the denial is not an
exercise of discretion; it is merely abuse of that discretion and inconsistent with the
spirit of the Federal Rules.” Id.; see also Baez, 348 F.3d at 974.
The district court abused its discretion when it denied Bellefleur’s motions
to amend his § 2255 motion without providing justification. The two motions to
supplement were filed after the magistrate judge filed his report and
recommendation, and when the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s
opinion, it made no mention of the motions to supplement. Contrary to the
government’s contention, the court’s statement that it “reviewed the entire file and
record” was not an adequate denial of a motion to amend in this case. See Foman,
371 U.S. at 182, 83 S. Ct. at 230.
We cannot affirm the district court’s order on the grounds that the motions to
supplement were futile or untimely. Bellefleur provided sufficient legal and
factual information in the motions to supplement to warrant a justifying reason
from the district court. The motions to supplement were not of a type such that
dismissal without discussion is permitted. See Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S. Ct. at
230.
3
Case: 11-13551 Date Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 4 of 4
We therefore vacate the district court’s denial of Bellefleur’s § 2255 motion
without prejudice and remand for consideration of the motions to supplement. In
doing so, we express no opinion on the outcome of the underlying claim or the
motion to amend.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
4