Sanders v. United States of America

Filing 12

ORDER: However, to ensure Sanders has an opportunity to respond to the Government's claim of untimeliness, the Court invites a reply brief from Sanders. That brief is due April 15, 2024. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy o f this order to Sanders by United States mail using the following address information: Reginald Sanders (Reg. No. 85756-054), FCI Fort Dix, P.O. Box 2000, Joint Base MDL, NJ 08640. SO ORDERED. ( Replies due by 4/15/2024.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 3/27/2024) (va)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
REGINALD SANDERS,

-v-

Petitioner,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

23 Civ. 1547 (PAE)
18 Cr. 390-2 (PAE)
ORDER

Respondent.
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
On February 16, 2024, the Court docketed prose motions from petitioner-defendant
Reginald Sanders to reinstate his § 2255 petition and to amend that petition. Dkt. 604. On
March 15, 2024, the Government responded, principally arguing that Sanders' original § 2255
petition had been untimely, because it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations
governing such claims. Dkt. 609.
The Court's preliminary view is that Sanders' petition was untimely. A I-year period of
limitation applies to § 2255 petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). In this case, "[t]he limitation period"
ran from "the date on which the judgment of conviction bec[a]me[] final." Id § 2255(f)(l). A
judgment of conviction becomes final when the Supreme Court "affirms [the] conviction ... on
direct review, ... denies a petition for a writ of certiorari, ... or the time for filing a certiorari
petition expires." Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 527 (2003). A petition for a writ of
certiorari must be filed "within 90 days after the entry of judgment," Sup. Ct. R. 13(1), unless a
Justice grants an extension "[f]or good cause," Sup. Ct. R. 13(5). That 90-day period "runs from
the date of entry of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed, and not from the issuance date
of the mandate." Sup. Ct. R. 13(3); see also Clay, 527 U.S. at 527.

After the Second Circuit summarily affirmed Sanders' conviction on November 5, 2021,
Sanders did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari or seek an extension to do so. See generally
United States v. Sanders, No. 20-2130 (2d Cir.). As such, the time for filing such a petition
expired-and Sanders' conviction became final-90 days later, on February 3, 2022. The oneyear period that Sanders had to file a timely§ 2255 petition thus expired on Friday, February 3,
2023. Sanders' § 2255 petition, however, was filed on February 5, 2023-the date when he
deposited it within the prison mailing system, Dkt. 587 at 12. See Noble v. Kelly, 246 F.3d 93,
97 (2d Cir. 2001) (prison mailbox rule applies to prose habeas petitions under AEDPA). It
appears, therefore, that his § 2255 petition is untimely. 1
However, to ensure Sanders has an opportunity to respond to the Government's claim of
untimeliness, the Court invites a reply brief from Sanders. That brief is due April 15, 2024.
The Court directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this order to Sanders by United
States mail using the following address information: Reginald Sanders (Reg. No. 85756-054),
FCI Fort Dix, P.O. Box 2000, Joint Base MDL, NJ 08640.

/~:~!l. E!~m±i:

SO ORDERED.

(;

/}

I\

/"''

j

1

United States District Judge

Dated: March 27, 2024
New York, New York

Although the limitations period in which to file a § 225 5 petition may be extended by equitable
tolling, such tolling is appropriate only where the petitioner "shows (1) that he has been pursuing
his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevent
timely filing." Clemente v. Lee, 72 F.4th 466,478 (2d Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). It does not
appear that any such showing could be made in this case.
1

2