United States v. Spellman, No. 3:08cr107, 2011 WL 2417122 (E.D. Va. June 13, 2011):
On July 30, 2009, the Court received from Spellman a one-page letter wherein he stated that he wished to withdraw his plea. Spellman listed the following causes as the basis for his decision to withdraw his plea: (1) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, (2) Unclean Hands, (3) Fraud, (4) Misrepresentation, and (5) Misappropriation of Policy. The letter did not contain any facts to support these charges.
The Court sent Spellman the forms for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and told Spellman that the Court would process a request for § 2255 relief upon receipt of the properly completed forms for seeking § 2255 relief. Spellman filed his § 2255 motion on October 25, 2009. During the time that elapsed between the two submissions, the one-year statute of limitations ran on Spellman's ability to pursue § 2255 relief.
Spellman's original letter does not provide a basis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) for rendering his § 2255 Motion timely. Relation back under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) "depends on the existence of a common core of operative facts uniting the original and newly asserted claims." Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 659 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[I]t is axiomatic that where, as here, there are no facts presented in support of the original claims [in the original letter], there can be no 'common core of operative facts uniting the original and newly asserted claims.'" Payne v. United States, Nos. 8:99–CR–78–T–27MSS, 8:05–CV–273–T–27MSS, 2007 WL 496608, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2007) (citing Mayle, 545 U.S. at 653–64); see Freeman v. United States, Nos. 3:08CR456, 3:10CV466, 2010 WL 3155982, at* 1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 6, 2010); Hardy v. Jones, 3:08CV843, 2010 WL 883749, at *2–3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 8, 2010) (concluding § 2254 petitioner's initial habeas petition, which did not set forth the facts that made her detention unlawful, did not have any impact on the statute of limitations analysis).