United States v. John P, Ramirez

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the Government’s motion to dismiss John P. Ramirez’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as untimely. The court rejected Ramirez’s arguments concerning a purported telephonic extension, actual innocence, pending extension motions, and the absence of a direct appeal. The court also dismissed a fourth motion for an extension of time for lack of jurisdiction, denied a certificate of appealability, and administratively closed the ancillary civil case.

Holdings

1. The § 2255 motion is barred by the one-year statute of limitations because it was filed on June 7, 2023, after the March 28, 2023 deadline.
2. Petitioner's actual innocence claim fails because he did not present new reliable evidence that was not available at the time of his guilty plea.
3. Petitioner's claim of a telephonic 90-day extension is conclusory, unsupported in the record, and provides no basis for denying the motion to dismiss.
4. Filing motions for extension of time does not toll or extend the § 2255(f) limitations period, and courts lack jurisdiction to entertain such motions absent a pending § 2255 motion.
5. Even assuming counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal were cognizable, petitioner's argument is factually and legally incorrect because finality is not established until direct appeal is exhausted or time expires.

Questions Presented

1. Whether petitioner's § 2255 motion is barred by the one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
2. Whether petitioner's claim of actual innocence constitutes a gateway to overcome the limitations bar.
3. Whether a telephonic extension allegedly granted by the Clerk of Court tolls the limitations period.
4. Whether motions for extension of time to file a § 2255 motion toll or extend the limitations period.
5. Whether counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal affects the finality of the judgment for § 2255(f)(1) purposes.

Disposition

dismissed