Opinion
No. 01 Civ. 1182 (RPP) No. 97 Cr. 295 (RPP)
June 30, 2002
OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Arthur Danielson, pro se, moves this Court for leave to amend his habeas petition pursuant to Rule 15(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, Petitioner's motion is denied.
Background
On June 3, 1997, Petitioner was convicted of one count of knowing possession by a convicted felon of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). On October 9, 1998, Petitioner was sentenced pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) to, inter alia, 180 months' imprisonment. Petitioner appealed his conviction, claiming that the Court permitted a constructive amendment of the charges against him, and his sentence, claiming the Court improperly counted his 1982 conviction for weapons possession in the second degree as a "violent felony" as that term is defined under the ACCA. On December 22, 1999, the Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's conviction, concluding that there was no constructive amendment of the indictment and that the Court's enhancement of Petitioner's sentence under the ACCA was not plain error, United States v. Danielson, 199 F.3d 666 (2d Cir. 1999).
On January 10, 2001, Petitioner filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to correct his sentence, claiming that his 1982 conviction for weapons possession was constitutionally defective because the prosecution failed to demonstrate all the necessary elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Court denied the petition, stating that "Petitioner is barred, as a matter of law, from using 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to mount a collateral attack on his 1982 conviction used to enhance his sentence under the ACCA." (Opinion and Order dated July 26, 2001.)
On September 10, 2001, Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Court's order dated July 26, 2001, arguing that use of Petitioner's 1982 conviction for weapons possession as the predicate felony for his conviction under Section 924(g) and as a prior felony conviction for his sentencing under Section 924(e)(1) violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Petitioner also argued that the Court misapplied United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A) because his possession of ammunition had no connection to a crime of violence.
In an Order dated December 19, 2001, the Court held that Petitioner's motion was properly viewed as a second or successive habeas petition, rather than a motion for reconsideration, because it raised new issues. Accordingly, the Court transferred the motion to the Court of Appeals.
On April 9, 2002, the Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's application to file a successive habeas petition because the motion was not based on newly discovered evidence nor a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive on collateral review by the Supreme Court.
On May 6, 2002, Petitioner filed the current motion.
Analysis
Petitioner seeks to amend his first habeas petition to include the two arguments raised for the first time in his motion for reconsideration dated September 10, 2001 based upon Rule 15(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 15(c) states that "the amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when. . . (2) the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading." Rule 15(c) is not applicable to Petitioner's case. The Court has already rendered a final determination on Petitioner's first habeas petition, and Petitioner may not seek to amend his first petition subsequent to such final determination. Petitioner's claims are in the nature of a second or successive habeas petition as the Court previously determined in its order of December 19, 2001. Having been denied leave to file a second or successive habeas petition by the Court of Appeals, Petitioner may not now seek to circumvent the Court of Appeals' ruling by resort to Rule 15(c)(2). Accordingly, Petitioner's motion is denied.