United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-30110

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jock R. Jones, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:16-CV-396

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jock R. Jones, federal prisoner # 05118-095, pleaded guilty to 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was convicted following a 

bench trial of carjacking and using a firearm during the commission of a crime 

of violence. He was sentenced to a total of 384 months of imprisonment and 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 22, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-30110 Document: 00515715774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2021
No. 19-30110

2

five years of supervised release. The district court denied Jones’s 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion, and it denied without prejudice his motion to supplement as 

an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. We granted a certificate of 

appealability on the issue whether the district court abused its discretion in 

dismissing Jones’s motion to supplement as an unauthorized successive 

§ 2255 motion.

Jones argues, and the Government agrees, that the district court 

abused its discretion in denying his motion to supplement because his first 

§ 2255 motion was still pending when he filed the motion. We review the 

denial of leave to amend a § 2255 motion under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 15 for abuse of discretion. United States v. Gonzalez, 592 F.3d 675, 

678 n.2, 679 (5th Cir. 2009). “An erroneous legal conclusion constitutes an 

abuse of discretion.” United States v. Saenz, 282 F.3d 354, 356 (5th Cir. 

2002).

There is no authority supporting the district court’s determination 

that the motion to supplement was a successive § 2255 motion. Cf. United 

States v. Riascos, 76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1996). When a pro se litigant raises 

a new issue for the first time in a pleading, the district court may construe it 

as a motion to amend his § 2255 motion. Saenz, 282 F.3d at 356; Riascos, 76 

F.3d at 94. Nothing in the record indicates undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory 

motive on Jones’s part, and it is not clear that amending his § 2255 motion to 

add the ineffective assistance claims would have been futile. See Foman v. 

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Jebaco, Inc. v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 587 

F.3d 314, 322 (5th Cir. 2009). There is nothing to indicate that the 

Government would have suffered prejudice if the district court had allowed 

the amendment. These factors weigh in favor of granting the motion in the 

interest of justice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Jebaco, Inc., 587 F.3d at 322; 

Saenz, 282 F.3d at 356. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in 

denying Jones’s motion to supplement his § 2255 motion. See Saenz, 282 

Case: 19-30110 Document: 00515715774 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2021
No. 19-30110

3

F.3d at 356; Riascos, 76 F.3d at 94-95. Accordingly, the district court’s 

judgment is REVERSED IN PART as to the denial of Jones’s motion to 

supplement his § 2255 motion, and the case is REMANDED to the district 

court for further proceedings concerning the ineffective assistance of counsel 

claims raised in Jones’s motion. 

Case: 19-30110 Document: 00515715774 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/22/2021