Opinion
Civil Action No. CV-98-2384 (DGT)
September 19, 2003
ORDER
On May 20, 2003, United States Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy issued a Report and Recommendation (the "RR"), recommending that petitioner George Rodney's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. By letter dated June 3, 2003 respondent raises an objection to the RR on the grounds that the amended petition is untimely because the additional claims do not "relate back" to the original petition under Rule 15(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
This court has also reviewed Petitioner's objections to the RR and finds them to be without merit.
As an initial matter, the applicability of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is discretionary in the habeas context. See Fed.R. Governing § 2254 Cases in the U.S. Dist. Cts. 11 ("The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with these rules, may be applied, when appropriate, to petitions filed under these rules.") (emphasis added). Although a habeas petition is, strictly speaking, a civil action — and thus the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may apply — this court, in exercising the discretion granted by Rule 11, must consider that this case arises out of a criminal prosecution. Under these circumstances, respondent is in no position to claim financial or other reliance on the running of the statute of limitations. Neither has respondent been prejudiced in any way in the defense of this case. Indeed, the three additional arguments raised in the amended petition — 1) that a witness and his Punjabi interpreter engaged in "grand standing and distorting of facts," thus denying petitioner a fair trial; 2) that the admission of a co-defendant's statement to police was a Bruton violation; and 3) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to make a speedy-trial motion to dismiss — are each based on evidence contained in the trial record, which was, of course, available to respondent. Thus, a stringent interpretation of the relation back doctrine is unwarranted. Cf. Fama v. Comm'r of Corr. Servs., 235 F.3d 804, 816-17 (2d Cir. 2000). The situation might be different if the issues required an investigation of matters dehors the record, when a claim of prejudice might be viable.
With these observations, and after an independent review of the record, this court hereby adopts Magistrate Judge Levy's RR. Accordingly, petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. Further, no certificate of appealability shall be issued because the petitioner has failed to make the requisite "substantial showing" that his claims raise a constitutional question deserving of appellate review.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.