Carabello v. United States
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:21-cv-00778
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Carabello v. United States, Judge Seibel gave Jayson Caraballo until March 19, 2021, to address concerns that his post-conviction petition was late.
Jayson Caraballo, whose federal post-conviction petition may face a timeliness dismissal, and the United States as respondent.
What happened
In Carabello v. United States, Jayson Caraballo filed a petition asking the federal court for relief under a law allowing federal prisoners to challenge their convictions or sentences. He filed it on January 22, 2021.
The court said the petition appeared to have been filed after the one-year deadline. It also said the information provided did not appear sufficient to justify extending that deadline for extraordinary circumstances.
The court did not dismiss the petition at this stage. Judge Cathy Seibel gave Caraballo until March 19, 2021, to submit anything further about whether his petition was timely, and directed the Clerk to docket the order in both related cases and send it to him.
The detailed version
- Carabello v. United States · No. 7:21-cv-00778
- Cathy Seibel
- Feb. 10, 2021
Background
Jayson Caraballo filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on January 22, 2021. Section 2255 allows a federal prisoner to seek relief from a conviction or sentence in certain circumstances. The order was docketed in both 21-CV-778 (CS) and the related criminal case, 10-CR-392-6 (CS).
Timeliness issue
The court stated that the petition appeared to be untimely. Under § 2255(f), a petitioner generally must file within one year of the latest of four possible dates: when the conviction becomes final; when a government-created filing obstacle is removed; when the Supreme Court initially recognizes the asserted right and makes it retroactively available; or when the supporting facts could have been discovered through due diligence.
The court said it did not appear that any of those provisions applied. It also said the information on page 13 of the petition did not appear sufficient to support equitable tolling, which can excuse a late filing when the petitioner pursued his rights diligently and an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.
Order
The court stated that the petition appeared unmistakably untimely, but gave Caraballo an additional opportunity to be heard before dismissing it on that basis. Judge Cathy Seibel ordered that any further submission about timeliness be filed no later than March 19, 2021. The order did not dismiss the petition. The Clerk was directed to docket the order in both captioned cases and send a copy to Caraballo.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.