Whitener v. USA

Filing 25

ORDER denying 24 Pro Se MOTION (Captioned as) Request that the Court's Order Requiring Government's Response to His Rosemond Claim, be Expanded to Also Require a Response on Whether his Bailey Claims are Timely. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 4/17/2015. (eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:14-cv-00600-MOC
ERIC WHITENER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
Vs.
UNITED SATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on petitioner’s Motion that the Court’s Order
Requiring Government’s Response to His Rosemond Claim Be Expanded to Also Require a
Response on Whether his Bailey Claims are Timely. As previously discussed, the screening
required by the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings have lead this court to conclude that
petitioner’s Bailey claims are time barred by a number of years. While petitioner has pointed to
cases which may well indicate that the government has taken a position favorable to him on
Rosemond claims, there is no case law which suggests that his Bailey claims have somehow
survived. While the government is certainly welcome to consider all of the claims the court has
found and addressed, it cannot require a response to claims that appear to be time barred. Having
considered petitioner’s motion and reviewed the pleadings, the court enters the following Order.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion that the Court’s Order
Requiring Government’s Response to His Rosemond Claim Be Expanded to Also Require a
Response on Whether his Bailey Claims are Timely (#24) is DENIED. The government is,

-1-

however, at liberty to address any claims the court has found and earlier denied if it deems such
action appropriate.

Signed: April 17, 2015

-2-