United States v. Paden

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma dismissed Donald Lee Paden’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as untimely. The court denied equitable tolling and appointment of counsel, granted the Government’s motion to dismiss, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

1. A § 2255 motion filed nearly fifteen months after expiration of the one-year period running from the finality of the conviction is untimely when none of the alternative triggering dates in § 2255(f)(2)-(4) applies.
2. A petitioner's assertion of a novel constitutional theory, without a new constitutional rule recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable, does not establish cause sufficient to overcome the time bar.
3. Appointment of counsel was not warranted because the interests of justice did not require it, and there is no general right to counsel in collateral proceedings.
4. No certificate of appealability should issue because reasonable jurists could not debate the correctness of the procedural dismissal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Paden's § 2255 motion was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
2. Whether equitable tolling was warranted because Paden asserted a novel legal theory.
3. Whether Paden was entitled to appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.
4. Whether a certificate of appealability should issue after dismissal of the § 2255 motion on procedural grounds.

Disposition

dismissed