United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM TO ANTHONY MILES (BY U.S. MAIL) AND
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DEBRA DWYER (BY
Lipton Hollander, United States District Judge
Mr. Miles and Ms. Dwyer:
know, Mr. Miles has filed various post-conviction motions
since late 2015, in connection with the Judgment entered on
March 20, 2015 (ECF 489). See, e.g., ECF 541; ECF
548; ECF 559. On July 5, 2016, Mr. Miles filed a motion to
vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (ECF 568, the "Petition"). He claims he
is entitled to relief pursuant to Johnson v. United
States, U.S., 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Id. Mr.
Miles asserts: "The District Court's determination
that Movant is a career offender relies on def[i]nitions and
information so vague that [the] Constitution's
prohibition of vague criminals laws [sic] is violated."
Id. at 2.
Order of July 6, 2016 (ECF 569), I directed the government to
respond to the Petition within 60 days. Id. The
government filed its response well before that deadline, on
July 19, 2016. ECF 570.
on July 28, 2016, the Clerk docketed correspondence from Mr.
Miles, in which he requested that his case be held in
abeyance until November 18, 2016, because, among other
things, he intended to supplement the Petition on grounds
other than Johnson. ECF 571. By Order of July 29,
2016 (ECF 572), I granted Mr. Miles's request for an
extension. Id. I also stated that, by August 12,
2016, the government could move to rescind the Order as
improvidently granted. Id.
submission docketed on August 4, 2016, the government asked
the Court to rescind the extension. See ECF 573. The
government argued, inter alia: "Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3), a 1-year statute of limitations
runs from 'the date on which the right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court.' The Supreme
Court issued its opinion in Johnson on June 26,
2015; therefore, the deadline for § 2255 motions filed
pursuant to Johnson was June 26, 2016."
Id. at 2. Accordingly, the government claimed that
Mr. Miles "had an entire year from June 26,
2015 to research, write, and file a Motion to Vacate pursuant
to Johnson." Id. at 4 (emphasis in original).
the government conceded that "Petitioner's one-year
limitation period to file a §2255 claim began on
November 18, 2015 and runs until November 18, 2016."
Id. at 3-4. But, it argues, id. at 4:
[T]his calculation does not change the fact that the deadline
for any Johnson-related § 2255 motion was June
26, 2016 - one year from 'the date on which the right
asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court.'
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). Therefore, when Petitioner filed
a Motion to Vacate pursuant to § 2255 on July 5, 2016,
the one-year clock from November 18, 2015 became moot and any
subsequent amendments are rightfully considered supplemental
to his Motion to Vacate.
August 25, 2016, the Clerk docketed correspondence from Mr.
Miles, in which he stated that he is preparing a response to
the government's opposition to the stay. ECF 574. On
August 29, 2016, Mr. Miles filed a motion seeking an award of
expenses and sanctions against Debra L. Dwyer, Assistant
United States Attorney, and the government, alleging a
violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). ECF 575.
light of the government's opposition to the lengthy
extension to supplement the § 2255 Motion (ECF 573), I
entered an Order on September 1, 2016 (ECF 577), shortening
the extension by a few weeks. I directed Mr. Miles to submit
his supplement by October 24, 2016, rather than November 18,
2016. Id. I also denied Mr. Miles's motion (ECF
575) for an award of expenses and sanctions against Ms. Dwyer
and the government, Id.
September 26, 2016, the clerk docketed a Reply from Mr.
Miles, addressing the government's opposition to the
original extension. ECF 578. Mr. Miles asserted, inter
alia, that his grounds for a stay "were, and are,
obstructed court-access, specifically (1) the severely
limited access to FCI Hazelton's legal research and
document preparation facilities (i.e. inadequate time); (2)
the facilities content inadequacy (i.e. no treatise on
contract law or Md. State law); and (3) the government's
(i.e. counsel's) exploitation of the above court access
obstructions, including [his] time lost responding to
frivolous filings." Id. ¶ 34.
Order of October 3, 2016, (ECF 579), I declined to extend the
deadline from October 24, 2016 to November 18, 2016.
Id. I concluded that Mr. Miles has been on notice of
the government's response to his Petition (ECF 570) since
July 2016. See ECF 579. I also determined that Mr.
Miles had not persuaded me of the need for the prolonged
October 5, 2016, the clerk docketed Mr. Miles's
"Objections" (ECF 581) to the Court's Order of
September 1, 2016 (ECF 577). Among other things, Mr. Miles
said, id. ¶ 3;
3.) I object to the Court's ruling that all claims are
'now due by October 24, 2016, instead of November 18,
2016.' (577 at 2) on the grounds that the ruling
constitutes an ABUSE of DISCRETION and DENIES me the
Congressional mandated one year (as calcu[la]ted by the
Supreme Court) in which to ...