Carrasco v. USA

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 2 The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant any relief, and this case is DISMISSED for lack ofjurisdiction. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion is DENIED as MOOT. (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 3/5/2025) (ars)

Case 2:25-cv-00053-Z

Document 3

Filed 03/05/25

Page 1 of 3

PageID 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
GILBERT JOSEPH CARRASCO,
Petitioner,

v.

>

2:25-CV-053-Z
(2:21-CR-046-Z-BR)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
. Respondent.
MEMORANDUM

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner Gilbert Joseph Carrasco’s Motion for an extension of time
to file a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 (“Motion”).
ECF No. 2. For the reasons stated below, the Court DISMISSES this case for lack of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED as MOOT.

BACKGROUND
After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of one count of Conspiracy to Distribute and
Possess with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine, one count of Possession with Intent to
Distribute

Methamphetamine,

and one

count

of being

a Convicted

Felon

in Possession

of a

Firearm. ECF No. 57. By judgment dated December 21, 2022, Petitioner was sentenced to 240
months of imprisonment on Count One, 240 months on Count Two, and 120 months on Count

Three, all to run consecutively, followed by three years of supervised release. See CR ECF No. 70.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction on February 14, 2024. ECF No. 88.
Petitioner now

seeks an unspecified

extension to file a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct

Case 2:25-cv-00053-Z

Document 3

Filed 03/05/25

Page 2 of 3

PageID 6

sentence under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 because he needs time to secure funds to hire new counsel.

See ECF No. 2.
JURISDICTION
Under Article III of the Constitution, federal court jurisdiction is limited to “cases” and

“controversies,” United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395 (1980), and federal

courts “possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded
by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal
citations omitted). Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”), Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, which imposed, among its other substantial changes
to the way federal courts handle habeas motions, a one-year statute of limitations for Section 2255
motions filed after its effective date. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Specifically, AEDPA states that the

one-year limitation period runs from the latest of
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by
governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the
United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making
a motion by such governmental action;
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by

the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the
Supreme Court and
collateral review; or

made

retroactively

applicable

to cases

on

(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims
presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due
diligence.
AEDPA’s one-year deadline is not a jurisdictional bar and can, in appropriate exceptional
circumstances, be equitably tolled. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (deciding that the
timeliness provision in AEDPA is subject to equitable tolling). Section 2255 does not authorize

|

Case 2:25-cv-00053-Z

Document 3

Filed 03/05/25

Page 3 of 3

PageID 7

federal courts to prospectively extend, stop, or toll the one-year statute of limitations, however.
See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(f). Rather, federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider a request for an

extension of time until a Section 2255 motion is filed because such a request presents no case or
controversy and would result in the issuance of an advisory opinion. See United States v. Bautista,
548 F. App’x 254 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain
[the movant’s]

motion for an extension of time to file a § 2255

motion.”);

United States v.

McFarland, 125 F. App’x 573, 574 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“Before the [Section 2255]
petition itself is actually filed, ‘there is no case or controversy to be heard, and any opinion we
were to render on the timeliness issue would be merely advisory.’”).
Here, a ruling on Petitioner’s request for an extension of time would require the Court to
determine in advance whether the Section 2255 motion will be time-barred, and whether equitable

tolling may be applicable. As noted, Section 2255 does not authorize a prospective extension of
the statute of limitations because there is no concrete dispute to be decided. Accordingly, the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant any relief and this case is DISMISSED

for lack of

jurisdiction. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED as MOOT.

The clerk of the court is directed to transmit to Petitioner a copy of the AO 243 standard
form for cases filed under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 in the event he wishes to file a Section 2255

motion.!
SO ORDERED.

March 5, 2025

a

MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
' Any such motion will be subject to the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 2255(f)(1).

3