UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 2, 2012
JAMES SANDERS, PETITIONER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: VIRGINIA A. Phillips United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE A SECTION 2255 MOTION [Motion filed on May 30, 2012]
Before the Court is Petitioner James Sanders's Motion to extend time to file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Civ. Doc. No. 1). The Court, having received and considered all papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, Petitioner's Motion, finds that the Motion is appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's Motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
A defendant may file a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 within one year from the date on which his conviction becomes final. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A conviction becomes final when the Supreme Court denies a defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari, or the 90-day window for filing such a petition elapses. See Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 532 (2003). The Ninth Circuit mandate affirming Petitioner's conviction and sentence was filed on March 14, 2011, and Petitioner did not petition for a writ of certiorari. (Crim. Doc. No. 239.) Thus, Petitioner's conviction became final 90 days after March 14, 2011, or June 13, 2011, and his deadline to file a Section 2255 motion was June 13, 2012.
On May 22, 2012, Petitioner executed a Motion requesting an additional 45 days to file his Section 2255 motion because medical treatment left him unable to mentally focus on preparing the motion. (Mot. at 1.) Petitioner delivered his Motion to prison officials for mailing on May 30, 2012, and the Motion was received in the court clerk's office on June 1, 2012. (See Mot. at 2.) For unknown reasons, Petitioner's Motion was not docketed until June 25, 2012, after Petitioner's time to file a Section 2255 motion had expired. The Court treats Petitioner's Motion as timely filed under the mailbox rule. See Stillman v. Lamarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003).
Petitioner has failed to establish good cause for an extension. See United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004) (a petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling on his Section 2255 motion if "extraordinary circumstances" beyond his control made it impossible to file on time). Petitioner has failed to submit an affidavit or medical records to substantiate his claim that "subjection to chemo and radiation therapy" resulted in his "inability to mentally focus on" preparing his Section 2255 motion. As such, he has failed to show that his medical condition made it impossible for him to file on time.
Even if the Court were inclined to grant Petitioner's Motion and extend his time to file a Section 2255 motion by 45 days, Petitioner's extension would have ended on July 28, 2012. That date has come and gone, and Petitioner has made no attempt to file a Section 2255 motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that granting Petitioner's Motion would have no effect and DENIES the Motion AS MOOT.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.