IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-20932
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE MARIA ALCANTAR, also known as
Joe Diamond, also known as Diamond Joe,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-94-CR-288-2
- - - - - - - - - -
May 25, 1999
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Maria Alcantar requests a certificate of appealability
(COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his motion to
vacate an illegal sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion
that Alcantar filed in the district court was entitled a
“preliminary” § 2255 motion, which does not exist, and the court
properly construed the motion as a motion to vacate. Within his
motion, however, Alcantar requested leave to amend his pleadings
before the Government was required to respond if discovery was
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 98-20932
-2-
denied. Under FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a), a party may amend a pleading
once as a matter of course before a responsive pleading is
served. After the district court’s ruling, Alcantar filed a
motion to alter or amend judgment under FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) in
which he noted that he had expressed the desire to amend in his
original motion. The district court’s denial of the Rule 59(e)
motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Southern
Constructors Group, Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th
Cir. 1993).
Given the brief amount of time between the filing of
Alcantar’s motion and the district court’s order, the fact that
Alcantar requested the opportunity to amend his pleading, and the
fact that, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act (AEDPA), it is likely that Alcantar will not get another
opportunity to raise his claims, it was an abuse of discretion to
deny the original § 2255 motion and to deny Alcantar’s Rule 59(e)
motion without allowing him the opportunity to amend. IT IS
ORDERED that Alcantar’s request for a COA is GRANTED and the case
is VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings, including the
opportunity for Alcantar to amend his § 2255 motion.
COA GRANTED; JUDGMENT VACATED; CASE REMANDED.