Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 5:02cr19-RH

vs. Case No. 5:05cv68-RH/WCS

COLLIS HOBBY, 

Defendant.

 /

ORDER TO AMEND § 2255 MOTION

Defendant filed a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, with a

memorandum of law and facts in support. Doc. 77. While Defendant followed the

general format, he did not use the § 2255 motion form as required by Local Rule 5(J)(2). 

The attached memorandum includes facts, references to the record, and legal

argument. 

Defendant is directed to amend using the § 2255 form motion, setting forth each

claim separately on the § 2255 motion form itself. Cf. Local Rule 5.1(J)(2) (providing

that "[n]o . . . motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . . . shall be considered by the court unless

the appropriate forms have been properly completed and filed by the litigant."); § 2255

Rule 2(c) (the motion must follow the form attached to the rules or prescribed by local

Case 5:02-cr-00019-RH-WCS Document 78 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

1

 Though these cases involved 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petitions and the § 2254 Rules,

the rationale applies to the similarly worded § 2255 Rules. 

Case Nos. 5:02cr19-RH and 5:05cv68-RH/WCS

rule). This is consistent with the requirement that a 2255 motion specify all available

grounds for relief, and "state the facts supporting each ground." § 2255 Rule 2(b)(1)

and (2). Requiring that the claims be alleged on the prescribed form also allows for

more efficient judicial review, and ensures that claims are not overlooked or "buried" in

a memorandum. See also Spaziano v. Singletary, 36 F.3d 1028, 1031, n. 2 (11th

Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1115 (1995) ("Although the habeas rules require more

than notice pleading, and some factual specificity will often be helpful, or even

necessary, a habeas petition should not resemble a treatise."); Buenoano v. Singletary,

74 F.3d 1078, 1081, n. 1 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1012 (1996) (habeas petition

should not read as both a petition and a brief, or raise claims "characterized by

conclusory references to reported decisions”) (citation omitted).1 

As to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Defendant must allege specific

"acts or omissions of counsel that are alleged not to have been the result of reasonable

professional judgment," and explain how the identified acts or omissions prejudiced the

outcome of the proceedings. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690-694, 104

S.Ct. 2052, 2066-68, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). If Defendant is alleging multiple instances

of ineffectiveness, he should assert each one as a separate § 2255 ground. 

The amended § 2255 motion shall be filed in its entirety, incorporating all

amendments, and matters not set forth in the amendment are deemed abandoned. 

Local Rule 15.1. Defendant shall not cite legal authorities in the motion itself. An

Case 5:02-cr-00019-RH-WCS Document 78 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

2

 If the amended motion is in proper form and the Government is directed to

respond, Defendant will have the opportunity to submit a reply including relevant legal

argument. 

Case Nos. 5:02cr19-RH and 5:05cv68-RH/WCS

accompanying memorandum is not encouraged.2 If filed it may not exceed twenty-five

pages in length absent leave of court on a showing of good cause. Local Rule 7.1(A). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The clerk shall forward three § 2255 forms to Defendant along with a service

copies (if Defendant provided service copies) of the § 2255 motion (doc. 77). 

2. Defendant shall have until June 20, 2005, to file an amended § 2255 motion

as explained in this order. Defendant shall also submit one identical copy of the

amended motion, including any attachments, and shall keep a copy for his records. 

3. Defendant is advised that failure to comply with this or future orders may

result in a recommendation of dismissal. 

DONE AND ORDERED on May 20, 2005.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:02-cr-00019-RH-WCS Document 78 Filed 05/20/05 Page 3 of 3