Opinion
CRIMINAL 22-147 (SRN/TNL)
05-02-2024
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Geraldo Jay Dilworth, Defendant.
Katharine T. Buzicky, Craig R. Baune, and Lauren Roso, United States Attorney's Office, District of Minnesota, for the United States Geraldo Jay Dilworth, Reg. No. 12036-510, FCI-Coleman #1, Pro Se Defendant
Katharine T. Buzicky, Craig R. Baune, and Lauren Roso, United States Attorney's Office, District of Minnesota, for the United States
Geraldo Jay Dilworth, Reg. No. 12036-510, FCI-Coleman #1, Pro Se Defendant
ORDER
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendant/Petitioner Geraldo Jay Dilworth's Pro Se Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. No. 67] (“2255 Motion”). Noting deficiencies in the 2255 Motion, the Court issued an Order on March 13, 2024 [Doc. No. 70] directing Mr. Dilworth to file a memorandum that met the requirements of Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings (“Rule 2”) within 30 days. If he failed to do so, the Court advised that his 2255 Motion would be denied as deficient.
Under Rule 2, a 2255 motion must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the moving party”, “state the facts supporting each ground”, and “state the relief requested.” R. Governing § 2255 Proceedings 2(b)(1)-(3).
In his 2255 Motion, Mr. Dilworth states in a single sentence, “I am requesting this honorable court for a 2255 motion for ineffective assistance of counsel.” (Def.'s 2255 Mot. at 1.) Mr. Dilworth has not complied with the Court's March 13, 2024 Order to file a memorandum stating the grounds for relief, the facts supporting each ground, and the relief requested, within the 30-day period.
Accordingly, due to his failure to comply with Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, and his failure to comply with the March 13, 2024 Order, Mr. Dilworth's Pro Se Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. No. 67] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.