KIRKLAND v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 8 Letter request for transcripts. Signed by Judge Katharine S. Hayden on 4/10/17. (sr, )(N/M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil Action No. 16-7831 (KSH)
Pro se petitioner David Kirkland, a prisoner confined at FCI Schuylkill in Minersville,
Pennsylvania, seeks to file a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, challenging a conviction and sentence this Court imposed upon him in United States v.
Kirkland, No. 06-cr-0911 (D.N.J. judgment entered Oct. 5, 2009), for interstate transportation of
stolen goods. Presently before the Court is a letter from Kirkland seeking certain “transcripts”
without fee. ECF No. 8.
However, the basis of Kirkland’s request implicitly raises a new ground for habeas relief
without seeking leave of court to amend. He wants to raise a jurisdictional argument regarding
the prior criminal proceeding—contending the government did not establish that the crime
occurred across state lines—something that in the initial § 2255 motion was not raised, and is not
related to any claim that was raised there. Compare id. at 2-3 to ECF No. 1. At this point, Kirkland
is time-barred from asserting new claims, because his judgment of conviction became final more
than a year ago, on November 17, 2015, after his time to seek review with the Supreme Court
expired. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 648 (2005); Hodges v. United States, 554 F.3d 372,
377 (3d Cir. 2009) (“Mayle forecloses the relation back of a new, untimely claim when it is
‘supported by facts that differ in both time and type from those the original pleading set forth.’”
(quoting Mayle, 545 U.S at 650)). As such, his request for transcript is denied. See 28 U.S.C. §
753(f) (“Fees for transcripts furnished in proceedings brought under section 2255 . . . shall be paid
by the United States . . . [only] if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the suit or appeal is
not frivolous and that the transcript is needed to decide the issue presented by the suit or appeal.”).
To the extent the letter can be construed as a request to amend, that request is also denied.
Respondent is not required to respond to Kirkland’s new claim for relief.
IT IS therefore on this 10th day of April, 2017,
ORDERED that Kirkland’s letter request for transcripts, ECF No. 8, is DENIED; and it
ORDERED that the clerk shall serve a copy of this order on Kirkland by regular mail.
_s/ Katharine S. Hayden________________
Katharine S. Hayden, U.S.D.J.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?