United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TOLL AND DENYING MOTION TO
L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge
September 30, 2015, Petitioner Ramon Alaniz was sentenced to
a term of 82 months of imprisonment after pleading guilty to
robbery. ECF No. 27. Judgment was entered on October 6, 2015.
ECF No. 27. On May 8, 2017, Alaniz filed a motion to vacate
his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 29. He
simultaneously filed a motion wherein he requested that the
Court consider his untimely § 2255 motion. ECF No. 31.
Alaniz contends that he was placed in administrative
segregation on September 14, 2016, a few weeks before the
deadline to file a § 2255 motion. He alleges that his
property, including legal papers, were seized and stored by
the property officer while he was detained. Upon his release
from administrative segregation, his previously prepared
§ 2255 motion was not among his belongings. According to
Alaniz, another inmate approached him on April 21, 2017, and
informed him that Alaniz's legal papers, including the
completed motion, had been given to him. Based on these
“extraordinary circumstances, ” Alaniz contends
that equitable tolling of the deadline for filing the motion
is appropriate. Mot. Enter. at 4. The Court directed the
Government to respond to Alaniz's motions. For the
reasons stated below, equitable tolling is not appropriate.
As such, Alaniz's § 2255 motion is untimely and will
in Alaniz's case was entered on October 7, 2015, and
became final 14 days afterwards. Fed. R. App. P.
4(b)(1)(A)(ii) (providing fourteen days for filing a notice
of appeal in a criminal case). A motion seeking relief under
§ 2255 is untimely if it is not filed within a
“1-year period of limitation. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
“That limitation period shall run from the latest
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
(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
(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 made retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.
Id. at (f)(1)-(4).
Alaniz could only conceivably rely upon § 2255(f)(1).
Thus, Alaniz's deadline for filing his § 2255 motion
was October 21, 2016. Alaniz did not file his habeas petition
until May 8, 2017. ECF No. 29.
situations, equitable tolling of the one-year deadline is
appropriate. Solomon v. United States, 467 F.3d 928,
933 (6th Cir. 2006). However, “equitable tolling should
be granted sparingly.” Id. (citing Dunlap
v. United States, 250 F.3d 1001, 1008-09 (6th Cir.
2001)). The following factors are considered in determining
whether to toll:
(1) the petitioner's lack of notice of the filing
requirement; (2) the petitioner's lack of constructive
knowledge of the filing requirement; (3) diligence in
pursuing one's rights; (4) absence of prejudice to the
respondent; and (5) the petitioner's reasonableness in
remaining ignorant of the legal requirement for filing his
contends that he believed the deadline to file was September
29, 2016, a year after he was sentenced. Alaniz was in
administrative detention from September 4, 2015, to October
4, 2015, after being found in possession of a weapon. Upon
being released, Alaniz's already completed (but not
submitted) motion for habeas relief was not returned to him.
On April 22, 2017, another inmate found and returned the
§ 2255 motion to Alaniz.
assuming all alleged facts to be true, tolling is not
warranted here. First of all, Alaniz was not in
administrative detention when the deadline to file passed. In
fact, he had at least three weeks after being released in
which to prepare his motion. Alaniz asserts that he was
operating under a misconception regarding the deadline to
file. Even if true, Alaniz could have researched the deadline
for filing and learned he had another month to ...