Hernan Prada v. United States, 692 F. App'x 572

Background

Prada, a federal prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on alleged inadequate investigation.
He filed a reply brief (labelled a response) that raised new issues not in his original § 2255 motion. The district court allowed the reply but later treated it as an unauthorized amended § 2255 motion because Prada never sought leave to amend.
Prada also moved for an evidentiary hearing, discovery (including wiretap materials and an alleged informant file), and expansion of the record to support his claims.
The district court denied leave to amend, denied discovery, denied an evidentiary hearing, and dismissed the § 2255 petition on the merits.
The district court concluded the record—including testimony from six witnesses placing Prada in the conspiracy after July 2, 2013—conclusively showed Prada was not entitled to relief and that the proposed additional materials would not have changed the outcome.
Prada appealed; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion or legal error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by construing Prada's reply as an unauthorized amended § 2255 motion	Prada contended the reply was just a response and not an amended § 2255 motion; he sought to rely on its new claims	The government argued Prada never moved for leave to amend and thus could not raise new claims in a § 2255 proceeding	Court held district court did not abuse its discretion; reply raised new issues and Prada never sought leave to amend, so new claims were barred
Whether the court erred by denying discovery	Prada sought discovery (wiretap materials, informant file) to develop facts supporting his ineffective-assistance claim	Government argued Prada failed to show good cause or how requested materials would entitle him to relief	Court held denial was proper: Prada failed to show specific allegations or how materials would produce relief (no good cause)
Whether the court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing	Prada argued factual development was needed to prove counsel’s deficient investigation and prejudice	Government argued the record was sufficient and allegations were speculative/conclusory	Court held no error: allegations were conclusory/speculative and the existing record conclusively showed no entitlement to relief
Whether counsel’s alleged failure to investigate entitled Prada to § 2255 relief (ineffective assistance)	Prada argued counsel should have pursued additional investigations and evidence (Millennium recordings, Solano file) which would have affected outcome	Government argued even additional investigation would not have produced evidence disproving guilt or changed the verdict	Court held Prada failed to show prejudice under Strickland; additional investigation would not likely have changed the outcome, so § 2255 relief denied

Key Cases Cited

Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2003) (standard for reviewing denial of leave to amend § 2255)
Bowers v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, Warden, 760 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir. 2014) (abuse of discretion review for discovery denials)
Winthrop-Redin v. United States, 767 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2014) (standard for evidentiary hearings in § 2255 proceedings)
Bracey v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997) (discovery in habeas requires court leave and good cause; need for specific factual allegations)
Dickson v. Wainwright, 683 F.2d 348 (11th Cir. 1982) (no hearing required where record conclusively resolves claims)
Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2004) (standards of review for § 2255 appeals)
Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. 4 (2009) (Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel)
Sims v. Singletary, 155 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 1998) (burden to show ineffective assistance by preponderance)
Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2000) (prejudice standard under Strickland)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (benchmark two-part test for ineffective assistance)
Adams v. Wainwright, 709 F.2d 1443 (11th Cir. 1983) (deference to counsel’s strategic decisions)