Dottin v. United States

Background

Marcel Dottin, who is incarcerated, submitted a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That statute allows a person in federal custody to challenge a conviction or sentence on specified constitutional, statutory, jurisdictional, or other legally recognized grounds. Dottin labeled his filing as a request for an extension of time to file a § 2255 motion, but he used a § 2255 form and stated that he sought to challenge his conviction under United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022).

The opinion states that Dottin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robberies, Hobbs Act robbery, and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. The judgment was entered on February 17, 2023. Because Dottin did not file a direct appeal, the court determined that his conviction became final on March 3, 2023. The court received his submission on December 2, 2024.

Why the Court Treated the Filing as a § 2255 Motion

The court explained that it generally cannot decide whether a § 2255 filing is timely until a petition has actually been filed. But when a filing seeking an extension contains allegations supporting a possible claim, a court may treat it as a substantive § 2255 motion. Because Dottin said he was challenging his conviction under Taylor, the court construed his submission as a substantive motion under § 2255.

Order to Amend

Rule 2(b) of the rules governing § 2255 proceedings requires a motion to identify every ground for relief, state the facts supporting each ground, and identify the requested relief. The court found that Dottin’s submission stated one ground but did not provide supporting facts. It also found it unclear whether he intended to assert additional grounds.

Because a prisoner generally has one opportunity to present all grounds for § 2255 relief, the court directed Dottin to file an amended motion. The amended motion must identify all grounds for relief and the facts supporting them, be captioned “Amended Motion,” use the same docket number, and be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Office by February 10, 2025. The court stated that Dottin could instead notify the court by that date that he wished to withdraw the application. If he failed to comply and could not show good cause for the failure, the motion would be denied.

Timeliness

The court explained that § 2255 motions generally must be filed within one year of the latest of specified events, including when the conviction becomes final, when a government-created filing barrier is removed, when the Supreme Court newly recognizes a retroactive right, or when supporting facts could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

The court noted that Dottin’s submission appeared to have been filed approximately one year and nine months after his conviction became final. It directed him to repeat in the amended motion the facts supporting his request to file late, including facts showing that he pursued his rights diligently and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. The opinion did not decide whether any late-filing exception applies.

Further Proceedings and Disposition

The United States Attorney’s Office was ordered to file an answer or other response by April 10, 2025. Dottin could respond by May 10, 2025, after which the motion would be considered fully submitted unless the court ordered otherwise.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the filing to remain designated as a motion under § 2255 and directed Dottin to amend it. The order did not decide the merits of Dottin’s Taylor-based or any other potential claims. The court stated that, at that stage, Dottin had not made the required substantial showing of a constitutional-right violation, so a certificate of appealability would not issue. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.