Order Denying Extension of Time to File § 2255 Motion — United States v. Gladys Harun (3:23-cr-3) (S.D. Ga. No. 3:23-cr-00003)

Full text

Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE Document50- Filed 01/02/25 Page 1of3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA  gounwan march or enorGia
DUBLIN DIVISION

JAN 02 2025
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *
* FILED
Vv. * CR 323-003
*
GLADYS HARUN *
ORDER

Presently before the Court is Defendant Gladys Harun’s motion
to extend the time in which to file for relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2255. This motion is filed nearly six months after the Court
entered an Order denying Defendant's motion to appoint counsel to
assist her in filing a § 2255 petition and reminding her that she
waived her right to collaterally attack her conviction and sentence
in her plea agreement. (Order of July 12, 2024, Doc. No. 46.)

The criminal judgment in the case was entered on January 23,
2024. Thus, Defendant is still within the one-year period of
limitation to file a § 2255 petition from the date upon which the

judgment of conviction becomes final.! See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).

1 Notably, because Defendant did not provide substantive
grounds for § 2255 relief, the Court cannot tell whether one of
the three factors delineated in § 2255(f) might apply to extend
the limitation period. Defendant only claims that she recently
changed her mind about filing a § 2255 petition because she learned
of a “constitutional violation.” (Doc. No. 49, at 1.)



Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE Document50- Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 3

While the deadline, in Defendant’s words, “rapidly approaches,”
the district court does not have authority to extend the one-year
limitation period in the absence of a substantive § 2255 motion.

See Swichkow v. United States, 565 F. App’x 840, 844 (11th Cir.

2014) (explaining that because the filing of a § 2255 petition
initiates a civil action, there is no case or controversy without
a substantive petition, and any opinion on timeliness would be
advisory). Moreover, the Court cannot treat the nominal extension
request as a substantive motion for relief because it does not
contain allegations sufficient to support a claim under § 2255.

See Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2001).

Finally, the Court cannot consider the doctrine of “equitable
tolling” because equitable tolling only applies if the § 2255
petition is untimely filed after the exercise of due diligence.

See Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269, 1271 ({(11t Cir. 1999)

(stating that the limitation period may be equitably tolled in
habeas cases “when a movant untimely files because of extraordinary
circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable
with diligence”). Here, Defendant admits that she has been sitting
on her rights since July 12, 2024. (See Doc. No. 49 (“Petitioner
has since changed her mind and was not going to file a [§] 2255

”) .)



Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE Document50_ Filed 01/02/25 Page 3of3

Upon the foregoing, Defendant Harun’s motion for extension of
time to file a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(doc. no. 49) is DENIED.

-\

PQ. fy
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this Arb day of January,

/ / f) H or <

UNITED oe DISTRICT JUDG

2025.

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.89545.50.0.pdf

Size

226,857 bytes

SHA-256

810458badf316fe5049c318ae44dde5ef24f70abc8793568c122b7ee76bec926

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.89545.50.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)