IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
November 2, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
WADE RANDALL PINE
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 2nd day of November, 2010, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 59) to amend petitioner's § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence imposed by this court on March 13, 2008, filed by Wade Randall Pine ("Pine"), and it appearing that the motion to amend was filed outside the prescribed limitations period, see 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section."), and it further appearing that Pine's original § 2255 motion (Doc. 55) to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence imposed by this court was filed within the prescribed limitations period,*fn1 the court finding that in order to amend a § 2255 habeas petition outside the statutory limitation period the claims in the amended § 2255 petition must relate back to the common core of operative facts in the timely § 2255 motion, see Hodge v. United States, 554 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2009) (noting that an untimely, new claim "supported by facts that differ in both time and type from those the original pleading set forth" is foreclosed (quoting Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 650 (2005))); United States v. Oliver, 379 F. Supp. 2d 754, 762-63 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (stating that "a § 2255 petitioner cannot amend his petition outside the statute of limitations period to add new claims based on facts that were readily available before the statute of limitations expired") (citing United States v. Duffus, 174 F.3d 333, 338 (3d Cir. 1999)), and the court noting that Pine's original § 2255 motion (Doc. 55) states claims for ineffective assistance of counsel whereas Pine's motion (Doc. 59) to amend challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3231, alleging that the statute was never properly passed by a quorum of the United States House of Representatives, the court concluding that the claim in the motion to amend does not relate to the common core of facts in the ineffective assistance of counsel claims and therefore cannot relate back to Pine's timely § 2255 motion (Doc. 55),*fn2 it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 59) to amend the petitioner's § 2255 motion to vacate or set aside the sentence imposed by this court is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge