Circuit’s decision. See Juan Fermin v. United States, 513 U.S. 1170, 115 S.Ct. 1145, 130 L.Ed.2d 1104 (1995). 6 . On May 16, 2011, Fermin sought to amend his § 2255 petition to add a claim alleging that the petit jury’s failure to identify the controlled substance he was found to have been trafficking violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. However, the Court denied Fermin's request to amend his petition because, at the time of the request, nearly a full year had passed since Fermin submitted his initial petition, and because the motion to amend came near the end of a 60-day extension that the Court had already granted to him in order to reply to the Government's opposition. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2); Monahan v. New York City Dep’t of Corr., 214 F.3d 275, 283 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83
holding that court may refuse leave to amend because of undue delay holding leave to amend should be freely granted absent a showing of undue delay bad faith undue prejudice or futility holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend after a delay of eight months holding the district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff who is represented by counsel never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court holding that delay of eleven months did not justify denial of leave to amend