Grier

Grier v. Hood

Good Law

46 F. App'x 433

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 29, 2002Nos. 01-36178, 01-36179, 01-36186, 01-36188, 02-35000, 02-35001, CV-99-00793-ALH, CV-00-00138-ALH, CV-99-00516-ALH; D.C. No. CV-98-01544-ALH; D.C. No. CV-98-01601-ALH; D.C. No. CV-98-01549-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-01036-ALH; D.C. No. CV-98-01-01550-HA; D.C. No. CV-99-00793-ALH; D.C. No. CV-00-00138-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-00516-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-00935-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-00227-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-00012-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-00933-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-00011-ALH; D.C. No. CY-00-00175-ALH; D.C. No. CV-98-001603-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-01736-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-00936-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-01645-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-01270-ALH; D.C. No. CV-98-01546-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-00403-HA; D.C. No. CV-99-01116-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-00733-ALH; D.C. No. CV-98-01600-ALH; D.C. No. CV-98-01547-HA; D.C. No. CV-99-00596-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-01104-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-00483-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-1747-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-00484-HA; D.C. No. CV-99-01017-HA; D.C. No. CV-99-00404-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-00932-ALH; D.C. No. CV-98-01098-HA; D.C. No. CV-99-00405-ALH; D.C. No. CV-98-01102-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-00199-HA; D.C. No. CV-98-0109-HA; D.C. No. CV-99-0022-HA; D.C. No. CV-99-00802-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-01358-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-01745-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-0137-HA; D.C. No. CV-99-01746-ALH; D.C. No. CV-00-00176-HA; D.C. No. CV-99-0872-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-00518-ALH; D.C. No. CV-00-00063-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-00228-ALH; D.C. No. CV-99-00795-HA; D.C. No. CV-00-00888-ALHCalifornia1,812 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioners appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to amend their pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, and subsequent order dismissing their habeas corpus petitions. We reverse. Because the parties are well familiar with the long procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

I

The district court erred in denying petitioners’ motions to amend. We review the district court’s refusal to grant leave to amend under Rule 15 for abuse of discretion. Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877 , 879 (9th Cir.1999). We review de novo the underlying legal conclusion of whether a particular amendment to the complaint would be futile. Griggs, 170 F.3d at 879; Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir.1998).

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b) allows the petitioners to amend their pleadings to conform to the evidence “at any time, even after judgment.” Here, the petitioners asserted that they were eligible for early release because the procedure by which the Bureau of Prisons (“Bureau”) rules were enacted was flawed. The initial petitions from John Gavis and Conrad Niemeier, for instance, alleged that “the new rules were neither properly…

Concurring Opinion

Beezer, J.

concurring.

I concur in the judgment of the court reversing the district court and remanding. I write separately to observe a tension in circuit law which may affect petitioners’ ability to ultimately obtain habeas relief.

Petitioners seek to invalidate the 1997 interim regulation and program statements upon which the Bureau of Prisons (“Bureau”) relied to deny them eligibility for sentence reductions. Petitioners contend that the Bureau did not provide adequate notice and opportunity for public comment before promulgating the regulation and program statements, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 553 . The program statements, however, are not subject to the APA. Gunderson v. Hood, 268 F.3d 1149, 1155 (9th Cir.2001). Should petitioners prevail in invalidating the regulation under the APA, the question becomes whether the program statements survive and could still be relied upon independently to deny petitioners eligibility. Grassi v. Hood, 251 *441 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir.2001), and Gunderson v. Hood, supra, suggest contrasting answers.

The Grassi petitioner challenged the substantive validity of the program statements. After we foreclosed this claim…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.