c. Statement as to whether Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on any issue concerning the ineffective assistance of counsel.

Each claim shall be set forth in a separately numbered section of the amended petition.

All claims not asserted in the Amendment Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be deemed and are forever waived, unless predicated upon new evidence or changes in the law [emphasis in original]."

On May 18, 1989, counsel Stephens and Harrington reported that, pursuant to the Court's April 18 order they had personally met with Briddle, who had reviewed the April 18 order, and advised him concerning it and discussed with Briddle "all potential grounds for relief and fully advised him of the present states of proceedings." Then, on May 19, 1989, Briddle, through attorneys Stephens, Foy, and Harrington, filed his amended habeas petition with the district court below and his request for evidentiary hearing "to cross examine" attorneys Sims and Thomas "on their affidavits" and to inquire into "Linda Briddle's [Linda Fletcher's] annulment" in April 1981 of her marriage to Briddle. The amended petition alleged that all claims made in it had been presented and exhausted in the state courts. It further sought a stay pending the Supreme Court's decision in Penry v. Lynaugh, cert. granted, 487 U.S. 1233, 108 S.Ct. 2896, 101 L.Ed.2d 930 (1988).

The state, on June 21, 1989, filed its amended answer, motion for summary judgment, and brief. It relied, among other things, on the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion on direct appeal, the findings and conclusions of the state trial court and Court of Criminal Appeals in the state habeas proceeding (including the procedural bars found therein), the affidavits of attorneys Thomas and Sims, and the state record.

No response to this motion for summary judgment was ever filed.

The district court below, on July 20, 1989, entered an "interim order" denying the requested evidentiary hearing. As to attorneys Thomas and Sims, the court noted that the state "process is adequate and no allegation is made that the process failed." As to Linda Fletcher's annulment, the court found that the annulment documents were "regular on their face, and admitted so" and that "[a]dequate opportunity to set aside the alleged void judgment of annulment between the petitioner and Fletcher has existed."⁴

Thereafter, Stephens, on August 18, 1989, again moved for a stay until the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in another case then pending before it, determined whether as a matter of law a Penry claim would be waived by failure to assert it at trial, where trial took place before Penry was handed down. The state filed an opposition thereto.

Nothing thereafter happened in the case until August 3, 1990, when the district court issued its memorandum opinion denying all relief. It held that state trial court habeas findings adopted by the Court of Criminal Appeals were "entitled to the statutory presumption of correctness [28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d) ]." It discussed and rejected each of Briddle's asserted bases for relief. It also noted that "the evidence of the petitioner's guilt is overwhelming." The court concluded that Briddle's claims about failure to develop mitigating evidence were appropriately rejected based on the state habeas court's fact findings adopted by the Court of Criminal Appeals. The court further noted "[n]othing that has been proffered by the petitioner since the trial indicates that the petitioner was or is mentally ill or was unable to conform his conduct or how, if at all, any drug use the day before the murder was committed prevented the petitioner from conforming his conduct." It concluded that Briddle's Penry type claims and his similar challenges to the Texas statutory sentencing scheme were procedurally barred and were in any event without merit, and that nothing in the Texas statutes prevented Briddle from offering the mitigating evidence he claimed should have been offered.

On August 15, 1990, Briddle, through Stephens, filed a timely motion to reconsider. This motion was entirely directed to the district court's ruling that the Penry claim was procedurally barred, and sought in the alternative a stay until disposition of the then pending case of Selvage v. Collins, 897 F.2d 745 (5th Cir.1990), in which this Court had, on March 6, 1990, certified to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals the question whether, in a case tried prior to Penry, the failure at the punishment stage of trial to request special instructions or to object to the form of the special issues respecting Penry-type evidence constituted a procedural bar under Texas law. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had not then answered that question, although it ultimately did so on May 29, 1991, finding no procedural default. Selvage v. Collins, 816 S.W.2d 390 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

Thereafter, nothing further transpired until on August 8, 1991,⁵ attorney Jane Disko filed a motion, also signed personally by Briddle, to be substituted for Stephens as Briddle's counsel. On September 20, 1991, attorney Disko, joined by attorney Schaffer of the same firm, filed a motion entitled "Supplement to Petitioner's Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment," together with a memorandum in support thereof. The motion recited:

"Present counsel's review of the record reveals additional issues that are not presently before the court. Intervening case law requires that petitioner file this supplement to protect his substantive and procedural rights. McCleskey v. Zant, [499 U.S. 467, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517] (1991)."

The motion then summarized the reasons assertedly supporting the relief it requested into the following three:

"1. Petitioner was denied due process because the state district judge who denied his request for an evidentiary hearing and selected another judge to decide the habeas corpus application was initially his prosecutor. This court should ... dismiss the petition without prejudice and remand the proceedings to state court to present all issues to an unbiased judge.

2. There are federal issues not previously raised in state or federal court. In light of McCleskey v. Zant, supra, this court should ... allow petitioner to properly raise all issues in his initial federal petition, or in the alternative, to dismiss the petition without prejudice and remand the proceedings to state court to present all issues to an unbiased judge.

3. This court declined to consider petitioner's claim under Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 [109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256] (1989), ruling that it was procedurally barred. In Selvage v. Collins, [816 S.W.2d 390] (Tex.Crim.App.1991), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a Penry claim such as petitioner's is not barred. As a result, this court should alter and amend its judgment and consider the Penry claims on the merits."

The motion concluded with a prayer for relief:"that this court ... vacate the judgment, dismiss the petition without prejudice, and allow petitioner to return to state court to present all issues before an unbiased judge. In the alternative, petitioner requests that the court alter and amend its judgment, ... grant leave to amend the Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus, grant an evidentiary hearing regarding unresolved issues of fact, and grant his Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus."

The memorandum in support of the motion was in five parts (parts I through V). Part I urges that in light of McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991), the court should "allow leave to amend the petition," asserting that McCleskey indicated "all possible issues must be raised in the initial petition," that "[i]n view of McCleskey, petitioner seeks to leave to redraft certain issues ... and to add federal constitutional issues." This part concludes by stating that the court should "alter and amend the judgment" and "allow petitioner to amend his petition."

Part II of the memorandum contains the five "proposed amendments." The first of these is that the state habeas proceedings denied Briddle due process because Judge Poe, who signed the March 27, 1989, order denying an evidentiary hearing in the state habeas case, had been a prosecutor in the original case until sometime in September 1981, and that his said order was thus void under state law. These allegations were based on a copy of the March 27, 1989, order and on copies of portions of the state record attached to the motion showing that Judge Poe, then as prosecutor, announced the state ready in March 1980 and January 1981, presented the case to the grand jury in October 1980, and agreed to a resetting in August 1981.⁶ There is no allegation that any of these facts were unknown, or unavailable, to either Stephens (or Harrington) or Briddle either at the time of the state habeas proceedings or thereafter during Stephens' (or Harrington's) representation of Briddle. It was also alleged that Judge Poe "asked Judge Michael McSpadden to rule on the [habeas] application." There is no allegation of any factual basis for this assertion, nor for the similar assertion that Judge McSpadden was a "long time friend of Judge Poe" and "Judge Poe personally asked Judge McSpadden to rule on this case, and Judge McSpadden agreed as a favor," and no affidavit, or tendered evidence, or any part of the record, even tends to support any of these assertions. It is also asserted that because of the foregoing the adoption by the court below of the state court habeas findings "likewise denied petitioner due process." No aspect of this claim had ever previously been raised either in state court or previously in this federal habeas proceeding.

The next two proposed amendments consist of a total of fourteen different assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel at, respectively, the guilt-innocence stage and at the punishment stage of the trial.⁷ All of these are based on the face of the state trial record, and none is claimed to be supported by any matter not previously before both the federal district court and the state habeas court. At least several of these claims were never previously raised in either this federal habeas or in the state court at any stage.8 No claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was made respecting any failure to develop, present, or argue mitigating evidence or any failure of counsel to object to the punishment charge or to request punishment phase instructions or definitions.

The fourth proposed amendment is a claim, not previously raised in the instant proceeding or in state court, that the prosecutor intentionally violated the trial court's order granting defense counsel's motion in limine as to evidence that Perillo had confessed so as to implicate Briddle, by asking Fletcher "is not it a fact that Pam Perillo never said that you had anything to do with any of these murders."⁹

The fifth, and last, proposed amendment is that the Texas statutory sentencing procedure, by precluding consideration of Briddle's diminished culpability "due to an abnormal childhood and an absence of the usual internal controls on aggressive or impulsive behavior," deprived Briddle of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel in that under "the law at the time of petitioner's trial, a reasonably competent lawyer could not risk presenting evidence of this nature" and deprived Briddle of his Eighth Amendment right to have the jury consider any "mitigating circumstances that may be relevant." Nothing in the state trial record is claimed to constitute evidence (either offered, conditionally offered, or admitted) of Briddle's abnormal childhood or absence of usual internal controls, and nothing outside of the trial record is pointed to in this respect. However, this contention is somewhat similar to ineffective assistance of counsel and counsel "chilling" contentions raised in the state habeas and previously in the federal habeas which each relied on the same January 1989 affidavits of Briddle's mother, father, and brother10 and the January 1989 affidavit of a psychologist who (at the request of Stephens) examined him for the first (and only) time on January 20, 1989.11

Part III of the September 20, 1991, memorandum contends that the May 29, 1991, decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Selvage v. Collins renders erroneous the district court's holding that Briddle's Penry claim was procedurally barred, and that the court should thus "consider the Penry claim on the merits."

The memorandum's part IV, relying on the cumulative error language in the panel opinion in Derden v. McNeel, 938 F.2d 605 (5th Cir.1991),--which was subsequently vacated when we took the case en banc and affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, Derden v. McNeel, 978 F.2d 1453 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2928, 124 L.Ed.2d 679 (1993),--contends in entirely conclusory fashion, and without identifying any one specific or particular claimed error, that "the combination of the errors is such that petitioner was denied due process and a fair trial." This claim had not previously been made in the instant federal habeas proceeding.12

The part V of the memorandum is its conclusion and prayer, which states:

"Petitioner requests that the court alter and amend its order, vacate the judgment, dismiss the petition without prejudice, and allow petitioner to return to state court to present all issues to an unbiased judge. In the alternative, petitioner requests that the court alter and amend the judgment, allow leave to amend the petition, and grant an evidentiary hearing to fully and fairly resolve all fact issues in dispute."

In sum, the motion and memorandum requested vacation of the judgment and only two other items of relief: (1) dismissal without prejudice, or (2) amendment of the petition to include the new claims and have a hearing thereon.

Nowhere in either the motion or memorandum of September 20, 1991, is there any explanation of why it was not sooner filed, or why any of the new claims therein were not raised in the amended federal habeas petition or in the state habeas petition, nor is there any factual allegation tending to show that it could not reasonably have been sooner filed, or that any of the new claims therein could not have been included in the amended federal habeas petition and in the state habeas petition, or that any of the contentions raised therein were not known or reasonably available both to Briddle and his former counsel Stephens (and Harrington).

In a brief order dated September 26, 1991, the district court, without stating reasons, denied both the August 15, 1990, motion to reconsider and the September 20, 1991, supplemental motion.13

Briddle filed a timely notice of appeal.14

Discussion

In this appeal Briddle, through counsel Disko, presents a total of four points of error. We discuss these seriatim.

Briddle's first point of error is that "[t]he district court erred in denying petitioner's supplemental motion to alter and amend judgment because the state district judge who denied petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing and selected another judge to decide the habeas corpus application was initially his prosecutor." Briddle contends in this connection that because until September 1981 Judge Poe had been Briddle's prosecutor, therefore his March 27, 1989, order denying an evidentiary hearing on Briddle's state habeas was void under Texas law, as was his asserted order assigning the case (at an unspecified time) to Judge McSpadden, and hence the district court erroneously accorded the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d) to the state court findings on Briddle's state habeas proceedings.¹⁵ We reject this contention.

Even laying aside its unexcused belatedness,¹⁶ Briddle's contention is wholly without merit. The April 11, 1989, findings were made by Judge McSpadden, not by Judge Poe. The only action taken by Judge Poe in the habeas case was his order of March 27, 1989. Prior to that time, Judge McSpadden had already taken the following actions in the case: on December 15, 1988, he reset Briddle's execution for February 14, 1989, and ordered that Briddle file any habeas by January 17, 1989; on February 13, 1989, Judge McSpadden again ordered Briddle's execution reset for April 21, 1989; and in another February 13, 1989, order Judge McSpadden directed that Briddle's trial attorneys, Thomas and Sims, file by March 5 affidavits explaining their representation of Briddle and responding to his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the state file its answer by March 8. There is absolutely nothing in the state record, or otherwise, indicating or tending to support the unverified allegation that Judge Poe assigned the habeas matter to Judge McSpadden.

Moreover, that allegation (made by an attorney who did not come into the case until sometime in 1991) is wholly conclusory in that there is no indication or statement of any facts which have caused the pleader to believe that Judge Poe so assigned the matter. And, Judge McSpadden was clearly free to order a full scale evidentiary hearing, had he deemed such appropriate.¹⁷ Moreover, under Texas law the only ultimate decision in a post-conviction habeas case is that made by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.¹⁸ The Court of Criminal Appeals "is not bound by the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the trial court in reaching decisions on post-conviction applications for writ of habeas corpus relief,"¹⁹ and can itself order an evidentiary hearing.²⁰

Here, the Court of Criminal Appeals itself "reviewed the record," determined that the trial court's findings were supported thereby, and denied relief on the basis of such findings. The findings in substance became those of the Court of Criminal Appeals. There is simply nothing before us to support the contention that Judge Poe's having acted as prosecutor in the early pre-trial stages of Briddle's murder case in any way caused either the April 11, 1989, order of Judge McSpadden or the April 14, 1989, order of the Court of Criminal Appeals to be void under Texas law, or in any way affected either such order, or deprived Briddle of due process, or prevented application of the section 2254(d) presumption of correctness. We reject Briddle's first point of error.

The second point of error presented by Briddle in this appeal is that "the district court abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to amend his petition for writ of habeas corpus to comply with McCleskey v. Zant," 499 U.S. 467, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991). The argument under this point makes it clear that the contention is that Briddle should have been allowed to raise the new claims asserted for the first time in his September 20, 1991, motion, and either have his petition dismissed without prejudice or amended and the new claims addressed on the merits, in order to avoid having to raise such new claims in a subsequent federal habeas that would be subject to dismissal for abuse of the writ pursuant to McCleskey (which Briddle's brief describes as having "held that a successive federal habeas corpus petition may be denied for abuse of the writ if the petitioner raises federal claims that could have been raised in the initial petition"). We reject this point of error.

As of September 20, 1991, Briddle had no absolute right to dismiss his petition without prejudice or to amend it. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, 41(a).²¹ He had been represented by the same counsel throughout his state and federal habeas proceedings (and that counsel had represented him on his application for certiorari, and had had the full record in his case since before October 1988), and has never alleged that such counsel was incompetent. Briddle had already amended his federal habeas petition once, following an order of the district court expressly advising him that claims not included would be deemed forever waived; the state had already answered and moved for summary judgment; and more than a year previously the district court had rendered judgment on the merits dismissing the petition for writ. Briddle presented absolutely nothing below or on this appeal to explain--and he has not even attempted to explain--the thirteen-month delay in seeking amendment or dismissal without prejudice. All of the "new" issues were based on matters reflected by the face of the record and no change in the law was asserted, apart from McCleskey itself.²²

We have ruled that "McCleskey is applied retroactively." Hudson v. Whitley, 979 F.2d 1058, 1063 (5th Cir.1992). Thus, McCleskey affords no valid basis for Briddle's September 20, 1991, motion. And, we have likewise held that McCleskey may not be avoided by motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Ward v. Whitley, 21 F.3d 1355, 1360 & n. 4 (5th Cir.1994) ("A habeas petitioner may not add new constitutional claims to a petition after the district court has entered judgment").²³ Moreover, we observe that McCleskey did not change the law in this Circuit applicable to Briddle's situation. Long prior to Briddle's filing of either his state or federal habeas, we had held that a prisoner represented by counsel (as Briddle has consistently been) was bound to raise all available claims in his initial federal habeas, or face Rule 9(b) dismissal in a subsequent habeas. Moore v. Butler, 819 F.2d 517, 519-20 (5th Cir.1987); Jones v. Estelle, 722 F.2d 159, 167, 169 (5th Cir.1983) (en banc), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 976, 104 S.Ct. 2356, 80 L.Ed.2d 829 (1984).²⁴ Indeed, the district court here had explicitly warned Briddle and his counsel that the to-be-filed amended petition would have to include all claims, and those not included would be waived.

We reject the contention that McCleskey required the district court to grant Briddle's September 20, 1991, motion.²⁵ Briddle's second point of error is without merit.

We turn now to Briddle's third point of error, which asserts that "[t]he district court abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to alter and amend the judgment because it failed to apply Selvage v. Collins," 816 S.W.2d 390 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). Briddle's argument under this point is that the district court erred in applying the procedural bar to Briddle's Penry-type claim because Briddle's case was tried before Penry, and in Selvage the Court of Criminal Appeals held that in cases tried before Penry, where Penry-type mitigating evidence²⁶ was presented at trial, the failure to object to the punishment charge or to request special instructions or issues did not waive or bar a claim that the punishment phase special issues were not adequate to allow constitutionally-mandated consideration of the mitigating evidence. Briddle's claim in this respect presents no reversible error, and we reject it.

To begin with, while the district court did apply the procedural bar in this respect, it also, alternatively, considered and rejected the Penry claim on the merits. We agree that there was no valid Penry claim to begin with.

Of all the evidence introduced (or proffered) at any stage of the trial, only two items are claimed to constitute Penry evidence. The first is the evidence that Briddle and the others drank alcoholic beverages, smoked marihuana, and became intoxicated the night before the murders. There is no evidence of the quantity of alcohol or marihuana consumed, and no evidence that Briddle was intoxicated the next day when the murders were committed. In any event, "evidence of intoxication may be considered as favorable to a negative answer to both the first and second punishment special issues, and hence is not Penry evidence. See Nethery v. Collins, 993 F.2d 1154, 1161 (5th Cir.1993); James v. Collins, 987 F.2d 1116, 1121 (5th Cir.1993); Cordova v. Collins, 953 F.2d 167, 170 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1067, 112 S.Ct. 959, 117 L.Ed.2d 125 (1992)." Anderson v. Collins, 18 F.3d 1208, 1214-15 n. 5 (5th Cir.1994). See also Lackey v. Scott, 28 F.3d 486, 487 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 743, 130 L.Ed.2d 644 (1995). The second and only other asserted item of Penry evidence is testimony by a woman whose son knew Briddle when both were confined in jail while Briddle was awaiting trial on the instant offense, that Briddle had befriended and counseled her son and effected "a complete change" for the better in the son's "attitude toward life," and, inferentially, indicating remorse on Briddle's part for having "failed in his life." We have repeatedly held that evidence of this sort is not Penry evidence. Crank v. Collins, 19 F.3d 172, 175 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 2699, 129 L.Ed.2d 825 (1994); Graham v. Collins, 950 F.2d 1009, 1032-33 (5th Cir.1992) (en banc), aff'd on other grounds, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 892, 122 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993); James v. Collins, 987 F.2d 1116, 1122 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 30, 125 L.Ed.2d 780 (1993); Barnard v. Collins, 958 F.2d 634, 640 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 990, 122 L.Ed.2d 142 (1993); Wilkerson v. Collins, 950 F.2d 1054, 1061-62 (5th Cir.1992). See also Johnson v. Texas, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 2658, 2669-72, 125 L.Ed.2d 290 (1993); Graham v. Collins, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 892, 902, 122 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993).

There was no Penry evidence introduced or offered (conditionally or otherwise) at any stage of Briddle's trial. Accordingly, there is no basis for any Penry claim. "This Court has held that a petitioner cannot base a Penry claim on evidence that could have been, but was not, proffered at trial." Anderson, 18 F.2d at 1214-15 (citing cases). To the same effect are Allridge v. Scott, 41 F.3d 213, 223 (5th Cir.) ("... capital defendants cannot base a Penry claim on evidence that could have been, but was not, proffered at trial"), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1959, 131 L.Ed.2d 851 (1995); Crank, 19 F.3d at 176; Callins v. Collins, 998 F.2d 269, 275 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1127, 127 L.Ed.2d 435 (1994). We have likewise consistently rejected the related argument that the Texas statutory capital sentencing scheme is invalid as preventing or chilling defense counsel's development of mitigating evidence. Thus, in Lackey we stated:

"Appellant argues that the Texas capital sentencing statute unconstitutionally interfered with his trial counsel's ability to make decisions about his defense. Specifically, Lackey argues that because mental health evidence could be considered in aggravation of the second special issue, the statutory scheme prevented his trial counsel from developing and presenting mitigating evidence about his mental condition. We have considered and rejected this precise argument in previous cases. See Black v. Collins, 962 F.2d 394, 407 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 992, 112 S.Ct. 2983, 119 L.Ed.2d 601 (1992); May v. Collins, 948 F.2d 162, 166-68 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1046, 112 S.Ct. 907, 116 L.Ed.2d 808 (1992)." Id. 28 F.3d at 490.

See also Crank, 19 F.3d at 176.²⁷

Accordingly, there was no Penry error, and hence application of the procedural bar thereto was irrelevant. We thus reject Briddle's third point of error.

The fourth and final point of error presented by Briddle is that "the district court abused its discretion in summarily denying petitioner's motion and supplemental motion to alter and amend judgment."

So far as concerns the original motion to alter and amend, filed by attorney Stephens August 15, 1990, it was directed solely to the district court's ruling that Briddle's Penry claim was procedurally barred (alternatively urging that the case should be stayed until Selvage resolved the procedural bar issue). As previously discussed in connection with Briddle's third point of error, as a matter of law there was no valid Penry claim, so the lack of procedural bar of such a claim was immaterial and afforded no valid basis on which to alter or amend the judgment.

So far as concerns the September 20, 1991, supplemental motion to alter or amend the judgment, Briddle's brief on appeal presents no argument as to the merits of any ground for relief raised in the September 20, 1991, motion.²⁸ Briddle merely argues in conclusory fashion that "[c]ounsel's evaluation of the record revealed that certain issues were not raised in the district court, nor did the court consider relevant intervening case law. On September 20, 1991, pursuant to McCleskey v. Zant, supra, petitioner filed a supplemental motion to alter and amend to protect his substantive and procedural rights" (emphasis added), and "[p]etitioner's motions, supported by memorandum of law, raised significant issues, addressed intervening and controlling case law, and sought alternative forms of relief. The motions did not seek reconsideration of previously litigated issues " (emphasis added).²⁹ Briddle urges, again in conclusory fashion, that the supplemental motion should have been granted "in the interest of justice and judicial economy."

What Briddle is essentially arguing is that the district court abused its discretion by not vacating its judgment so as to allow Briddle to amend his complaint to assert new claims raised for the first time more than a year after the judgment. We reject this contention.

A district court's decision to grant or deny leave to amend after answer is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 952 F.2d 841, 846-47 (5th Cir.1992), aff'd on this point en banc, 37 F.3d 1069, 1073 & n. 8 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc) (no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend to assert new theories after opposite party filed motion for summary judgment); 6 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d Sec. 1486 at 604 ("Rule 15(a) gives the court extensive discretion to decide whether to grant leave to amend after the time for amendment as of course has passed"). Similarly, denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., Batterton v. Texas General Land Office, 783 F.2d 1220, 1225 (5th Cir.1986) ("A district court's decision to deny a motion to alter or amend judgment may be reviewed only for an abuse of discretion"); Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir.1993).

We have consistently recognized undue delay as justifying denial of leave to amend, Little, particularly where leave to amend is sought to raise new matters after the trial court has ruled on the merits or entered judgment. In such circumstances, we have consistently upheld the denial of leave to amend where the party seeking to amend has not clearly established that he could not reasonably have raised the new matter prior to the trial court's merits ruling. This is explained in 6 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, Sec. 1489, as follows:

"Most courts faced with the problem have held that once a judgment is entered the filing of an amendment cannot be allowed until the judgment is set aside or vacated under Rule 59 or Rule 60.... This approach appears sound. To hold otherwise would enable the liberal amendment policy of Rule 15(a) to be employed in a way that is contrary to the philosophy favoring finality of judgments and the expeditious termination of litigation....

The fact that a party desiring to amend after judgment has been entered is obliged first to obtain relief from the judgment imposes some important restrictions on the ability to employ Rule 15(a). For example, a judgment generally will be set aside only to accommodate some new matter that could not have been asserted during the trial...." Id. at 692-694 (footnotes omitted).

. . . . .

"A number of courts, exercising their discretion under Rule 15(a), have refused to allow a postjudgment amendment when the moving party had an opportunity to assert the amendment during trial but waited until after judgment before requesting leave; these courts based their conclusions on the moving party's unreasonable delay. For example, in Freeman v. Continental Gin Company [381 F.2d 459 (5th Cir.1967) ], a seller sued a buyer for the purchase price under a contract of sale. The district court granted summary judgment for the seller.... Although the case was substantially disposed of, a formal judgment was not entered. Nine months after the grant of summary judgment and approximately eighteen months after the filing of the original answer, defendant attempted to amend to charge plaintiff with fraud. The district court denied leave to vacate the summary judgment and amend. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, stating:

A busy district court need not allow itself to be imposed upon by the presentation of theories seriatim. Liberality in amendment is important to assure a party a fair opportunity to present his claims and defenses, but 'equal attention should be given to the proposition that there must be an end finally to a particular litigation.' * * * Much of the value of summary judgment procedure in the cases in which it is appropriate--and we have held this to be such a case--would be dissipated if a party were free to rely on one theory in an attempt to defeat a motion for summary judgment and then, should that theory prove unsound, come back long thereafter and fight on the basis of some other theory." Id. at 696-97 (footnotes omitted).

We have consistently followed Freeman. Thus in Union Planters Nat. Leasing v. Woods, 687 F.2d 117 (5th Cir.1982), we sustained a district court's denial of leave to amend (to assert a new defense) asserted in a motion for rehearing directed to an order granting the opposite party's motion for summary judgment, stating:

" 'A busy district court need not allow itself to be imposed upon by the presentation of theories seriatim.' Freeman, 381 F.2d at 469. Further, after summary judgment has been granted, the court has "even more reason for refusing to allow amendment." Id.; Gregory [v. Mitchell], 634 F.2d at 203 [ (5th Cir.1981) ]. "Then, the concerns of finality in litigation become more compelling, and the litigant has had the benefit of a day in court, in some fashion, on the merits of his claim," Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Investment Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 598 n. 2 (5th Cir.1981).' " Id. at 121.

In numerous other instances we have applied the same rationale. See, e.g., Waltman v. International Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473-74 (5th Cir.1989) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion for reconsideration of order granting partial summary judgment where materials relied on for reconsideration "were available to" movant "when she opposed ... [the] summary judgment motion ... and she did not give any explanation why she did not include the materials with her motion in opposition to summary judgment"); Savers Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Reetz, 888 F.2d 1497, 1508-09 (5th Cir.1989) (no abuse of discretion in denying Rule 59(e) motion, seeking to raise new theories why summary judgment not proper, where facts were known to movant in advance of summary judgment); Southern Constructors Group v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 612 & n. 25 (5th Cir.1993) (no abuse of discretion in denying Rule 59(e) motion that sought to amend to raise new theory, noting that denials of leave to amend are sustained "when the moving party engaged in undue delay or attempted to present theories of recovery seriatim," citing Union Planters ). See also Batterton at 1225.

Here, when the district court rendered judgment, the case had been pending for nearly eighteen months; indeed, more than a year had elapsed both since the state's motion for summary judgment was filed (no response thereto ever having been made) and since Briddle had filed his amended petition in response to the district court's order to do so and to be sure to raise all claims therein on pain of waiving any not raised. Briddle was represented by counsel throughout. Yet it was not until over a year after the district court's judgment that the supplemental motion to alter or amend was filed. No reasons are advanced in the motion or in its supporting memorandum why any of the new claims raised therein could not have been raised when the amended petition was filed more than two years previously, nor are any such reasons advanced on appeal. It is obvious that there are no such reasons, because everything relied on in the supplemental motion to alter or amend is reflected in the state record (either the original record or the state habeas record). Indeed, the supplemental motion asserts (as does Briddle on appeal) that "counsel's review of the record reveals additional issues that are not presently before the court" (emphasis added). Plainly, there was no abuse of discretion in denying the supplemental motion to alter or amend.

Briddle asserts that the district court's order denying the supplemental motion to alter or amend must be reversed because it states no reasons. There is no requirement that reasons be stated for the denial of a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). Cf. Addington v. Farmer's Elevator Mut. Ins. Co., 650 F.2d 663, 666-667 (5th Cir.1981) (sustaining purely implicit denial of plaintiff's motion for leave to amend which "attempted to establish a new factual and legal theory" but was not filed until "more than a year after ... institution of suit, after discovery had been terminated and after the defendant's motion for summary judgment"). Briddle relies on Midland West Corp. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 911 F.2d 1141, 1145 (5th Cir.1990), where we reversed the district court's denial of a joint motion of the parties to modify an agreed judgment "to reflect their intent accurately," stating "because the district court's order offers no reason or basis for denying the timely filed motion to reform for a conceded mutual mistake and none is apparent to us, we find error" (emphasis added). Plainly Midland West is not remotely on point. Here there is not only no joint motion nor conceded mistake, but valid--indeed compelling--reasons for denying the motion are obvious and apparent on the face of the record.

We reject Briddle's fourth and final point of error.

Conclusion

Having fully considered and rejected each of Briddle's points of error, the judgment of the district court is accordingly

AFFIRMED.³⁰

*****