USA v. MEHTA

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	PLAINTIFF
V. 	Case No. 2:23-cr-20006-SOH-1
NEIL RAVI MEHTA 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Currently before the Court is the Defendant’s pro se Motion for Extension of Time to File
a 2255 Motion. (ECF No. 71) (the “Motion”). The Motion was referred to the undersigned on
April 30, 2025. (ECF No. 75). The Government filed its Response in opposition to the Motion on
May 5, 2025. (ECF No. 76).
I. 	BACKGROUND
On October 26, 2023, the Defendant, Neil Ravi Mehta (“Mehta”), waived Indictment and
pleaded guilty to a Felony Information charging him with: Possession of a Destructive Device, in
violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871 (Count One); making Fraudulent and False
Statements in connection with a U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §
7206(1) (Count Two); and making False Declarations Before Court, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1623 (Count Three). (ECF Nos. 26, 27, 29, 30). Following a presentence investigation, Mehta
was sentenced on June 20, 2024, with the Hon. P. K. Holmes, III, District Judge, imposing a
sentence of 57 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release on Count One, 36
months of imprisonment and one year of supervised release on Court Two, and 57 months of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release on Count Three, all to run concurrently, with
no fine imposed, and restitution in the amount of $659,825.52 was ordered to paid (interest
waived). (ECF Nos. 48, 51). Judgment was entered on June 20, 2024. (ECF No. 49). Had Mehta
Case 2:23-cr-20006-JTS-MEF Document 78 Filed 05/08/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
wished to file an appeal, he was required to do so within 14 days. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i).
No direct appeal was taken by Mehta, so his convictions and sentences became final on July 4,
2024 (14 days after entry of the Judgment). See Murray v. United States, 313 F. App’x 924, 925
(8th Cir. 2009). From that date, Mehta has one year, or until July 4, 2025, to file a timely § 2255
habeas petition.1 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). Thus, Mehta’s one-year limitations period to file a timely
§ 2255 petition has not yet expired.
On April 25, 2025, Mehta filed a pro se Motion for Extension of Time to File a 2255
Motion. 	(ECF No. 71). 	In it, he correctly identifies July 4, 2024, as the date upon which his
convictions and sentences became final, and he seeks an unspecified extension of time to file a §
2255 federal habeas petition, indicating that he intends to make claims related to ineffective
assistance of his former retained counsel, and that newly discovered evidence and extraordinary
circumstances beyond his control warrant an extension of the deadline for filing a § 2255 petition.
(Id.). In its Response, the Government argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider
a petitioner’s motion for extension, stating that a motion for extension alone does not present a
“case or controversy” as required by Article III for a court to have jurisdiction. (ECF No. 76).
For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned agrees that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction at this time, and it RECOMMENDED that Mehta’s pro se Motion for Extension of
Time to File a 2255 Motion (ECF No. 71) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
II. 	ANALYSIS
The exercise of federal jurisdiction under the U. S. Constitution depends on the existence
of a case or controversy. See United States Nat’l Bank v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S.
1 And because that date is a legal holiday, the due date rolls over to the next business day, July 5,
2025. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(3)(A).
Case 2:23-cr-20006-JTS-MEF Document 78 Filed 05/08/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
439, 446 (1993). 	Absent the filing of a federal habeas petition under § 2255 challenging a
defendant’s conviction or sentence, there is no concrete dispute before a court to be decided, and
the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider a motion for extension of time. See Ramirez
v. United States, 461 F.Supp.2d 439, 440-41 (E.D.Va. 2006) (“… every court to have [considered
the issue] has concluded that federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of a § 2255
petition until the petition itself is filed because a motion for extension of time is not, by itself, a
‘case or controversy’ within the meaning of Article III of the United States Constitution.”);
Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 746 (1998) (“The underlying ‘controversy’ between petitioners
and respondent is whether respondent is entitled to federal habeas relief setting aside his sentence
or conviction obtained in the California courts.”). As noted in Ramirez, a motion for extension of
time to file a § 2255 petition, standing alone, does not present a “case or controversy” as required
by Article III for a court to have subject matter jurisdiction. See United States v. Green, 260 F.3d
78, 82 (2nd Cir. 2001); United States v. Anderson, Crim. No. 03-426 (RHK/AJB), 2007 WL
2973838, at *1 (D. Minn. Oct. 9, 2007) (citing Ramirez); and United States v. Two Shields, No.
1:06-cr-19, 2008 WL 2788423, at *1 (D.N.D. July 16, 2008) (also citing Ramirez) (denying
defendant’s motion to produce transcripts, for an extension of time to file a § 2255 petition, and
for appointment of counsel).
“For a court to have jurisdiction over a motion for extension of time to file a Section 2255
petition, the motion must be either (i) filed concurrently with or after a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition
or (ii) be construed as a § 2255 petition itself.” Two Shields, 2008 WL 2788423, at *1. And to be
construed as a § 2255 petition, the motion for extension of time must contain “allegations sufficient
to support a claim under Section 2255.” Id.; see also Howard v. United States, No. 4:10CV300,
2010 WL 1424026, at *1 (E.D.Mo. Apr. 9, 2010) (before dismissing a motion for extension of time
Case 2:23-cr-20006-JTS-MEF Document 78 Filed 05/08/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
for lack of jurisdiction, the court should first view the motion liberally and determine if it may be
construed as a § 2255 petition).
Here, Mehta has not yet filed a § 2255 petition, but only a motion for extension of time to
do so. As such, the analysis must proceed to whether recharacterizing the Motion as a § 2255
petition is appropriate. 	While Mehta’s Motion indicates that a § 2255 petition is forthcoming,
which will apparently assert claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the allegations in his
Motion fall well short of even the minimal pleading standards required for a § 2255 petition. See
Rule 2(b), Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings. Mehta complains that his former counsel “not
only withheld critical portions of his case file, but also provided deficient and misleading advice
regarding the filing deadline,” and that his former counsel “failed to investigate and properly
document all relevant evidence.” (ECF No. 71 at 2). He fails, however, to identify what critical
portions of his case file were withheld from him, what the allegedly deficient and misleading
advice was, what counsel failed to properly investigate, or how those actions or inactions
prejudiced him, nor does he provide any other specific factual allegations to support his claims.
His allegations are, therefore, insufficient to support a claim for relief under § 2255, even given
the benefit a liberal construction. 	Vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a
ground for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Hollis v. United States, 796 F.2d 1043, 1046 (8th
Cir. 1986); Smith v. United States, 677 F.2d 39, 41 (8th Cir. 1982) (conclusory allegations,
unsupported by any specifics, are subject to summary dismissal); Bryson v. United States, 268 F.3d
560, 562 (8th Cir. 2001) (brief, conclusory allegations that failed to cite to the record insufficient
to support claims of ineffective assistance of counsel). Even pro se litigants must state specific
facts in support of their claims regarding counsel’s allegedly deficient performance. Saunders v.
United States, 236 F.3d 950, 952-53 (8th Cir. 2001). The Motion currently before the Court alleges
Case 2:23-cr-20006-JTS-MEF Document 78 Filed 05/08/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
little beyond forecasting that a forthcoming § 2255 petition will assert claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel. Since the Motion does not sufficiently state grounds for relief under § 2255,
it cannot properly be construed to be a § 2255 petition, and the Court therefore lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the Motion.
“If and when [Mehta] files a § 2255 habeas petition in this Court, and if the timeliness of
that petition is questioned or is apparent on the face of the petition, this Court can consider at that
time whether [Mehta] is entitled to statutory or equitable tolling. However, those are matters than
cannot be decided at this time.” 	Garcia v. People, No. 2:24-cv-03624-MEMF-AJR, 2024 WL
5345214, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2024); see also United States v. Turner, No. 8:21CR78, 2025
WL 1100862, at *2 (D. Neb. Apr. 14, 2025).
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, it is RECOMMENDED that Mehta’s Motion for
Extension of Time to File a 2255 Motion (ECF No. 71) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
written objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties
are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by
the district court.
DATED this 8th day of May 2025.
/s/	
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:23-cr-20006-JTS-MEF Document 78 Filed 05/08/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>