We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
3RD CIRCUIT EXPLAINS WHEN 2255 AMENDMENT “RELATES BACK”
This may be an especially bad time to be talking about going back, but our topic has to do with an amendment going back (we call it relating back) to the date of the original filing. “Relating back” is important where statutes of limitations might otherwise preclude raising a claim.
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lets a 28 USC § 2255 petitioner amend his or her petition, provided that the one-year deadline for raising issues (under 28 USC 2255(f)) has not yet passed or, if it has, if the amendment “relates back” to the original petition. When I was in law school, years before I had even heard of a § 2255 motion, the “relation back” standard of FRCivP 15(c) made no sense to me. My understanding hasn’t improved much in 45 years.
Two weeks ago, the 3rd Circuit tried to make sense of it. A § 2255 petitioner had filed a motion complaining that her trial and appellate counsel had been ineffective by, among other things, failing to argue at sentencing or on appeal, that the Presentence Report included certain errors, including an errant calculation with respect to the number-of-victims enhancement. In her amendment, the petitioner provided an explanation as to why her counsel was ineffective by failing to raise the errors.
In particular, petitioner said she would not have been eligible for the number-of-victims enhancement under the versions of the Guidelines that were in effect at the time of her alleged crime. According to petitioner, the PSR the district court relied upon at sentencing used the 2012 version of the Guidelines, which contained a broader definition of who may be considered a “victim” for purposes of determining eligibility for the number-of-victims enhancement. She said this made her eligible for the enhancement, and receiving a higher Guidelines range than she would have received under the 2006 and 2007 Guidelines.
The 3rd Circuit said this was a perfectly fine amendment. “These allegations merely are amendments that restate the original claim with greater particularity or amplify the factual circumstances surrounding the pertinent conduct, transaction, or occurrence in the preceding pleading,” and therefore the allegations contained in the motion to amend “fall within Rule 15(c)” and relate back to the date of petitioner’s initial habeas petition.”
The decision is a broad procedural holding in favor of § 2255 movants. It basically approves filing a skeleton § 2255 motion, and putting meat on its bones in a later amendment, even if the amendment well after the § 2255(f) deadline.
United States v. Santarelli, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20109 (3rd Cir. July 5, 2019)
– Thomas L. Root