Leon Swichkow v. United States, 565 F. App'x 840

Swichkow was convicted in 2008 of wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, and securities fraud; direct appeal affirmed, Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2012.
AEDPA's one-year filing deadline for a § 2255 motion ran from final judgment, i.e., January 9, 2013.
Before the deadline, Swichkow sent a pro se 2012 letter seeking a six-month extension due to medical issues; district court lacked authority to rule on extensions without a filed § 2255 motion.
Swichkow filed additional extension requests in January 2013 but did not submit a substantive § 2255 claim; the district court denied the extension and later dismissed the § 2255 motion as untimely.
The district court issued a COA limited to the extension denial; on appeal, the court vacated and remanded to address whether Swichkow should receive a COA for equitable tolling and timeliness.
On remand, the court considered Swichkow’s medical records and concluded that equitable tolling might be implicated and vacated the COA for further consideration on timeliness and the potential underlying constitutional claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to rule on an extension before a § 2255 petition was filed.	Swichkow asserted extensions were warranted due to health; argued district court should consider tolling.	Government contended no jurisdiction absent a substantive § 2255 motion.	Jurisdiction exists only after a § 2255 motion is filed; extension rulings before filing are not reviewable on timeliness.
Whether a COA was properly issued limited to the extension denial and its scope.	Swichkow contends the COA should cover equitable tolling and substantive claims.	Government argues COA scope was limited to timeliness denial.	COA remanded to address both timeliness and underlying constitutional claims.
Whether equitable tolling may render the § 2255 motion timely given Swichkow’s medical hardship.	Swichkow showed significant hospitalizations and delays in obtaining medical records.	Record failed to show extraordinary circumstances and due diligence.	Remand to determine if equitable tolling applies; court vacates COA for reconsideration.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 F.3d 473 (2000 (U.S. Supreme Court)) (two-step inquiry for COA: underlying claims and procedural ruling.)
Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202 (2003 (U.S. Supreme Court)) (COA scope when denying habeas relief.)
Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d 856 (2011 (11th Cir.)) (pro se extension context; guidance on treating extensions as habeas petitions.)
United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162 (2000 (2d Cir.)) (district court lacks jurisdiction to rule on timeliness before petition filed in § 2255 context.)
United States v. Thomas, 713 F.3d 165 (2013 (3d Cir.)) (district court may rule on extension pre-filing under equitable tolling framework.)
United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622 (1990 (11th Cir.)) (§ 2255 proceedings are civil actions; independent of original criminal case.)
Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287 (2009 (11th Cir.)) (discusses consideration of medical evidence in tolling analysis.)
Mazola v. United States, 294 F. App’x 480 (2008 (11th Cir.)) (district court may grant limited tolling based on hospitalization.)
United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622 (1990 (11th Cir.)) (recognizes § 2255 proceedings as separate civil actions.)