Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Michael David Platt, Petitioner v. United States

APPENDIX

INDEX OF APPENDICES

The following documents are included in the Appendix to this Petition for a Writ of

Certiorari, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 14. l(i):

Appendix

Description

Court / Tribunal

Date

Entered

A

Order Denying

Certificate of

Appealability and In

Forma Pauperis Status

U.S. Court of Appeals,

Seventh Circuit Case No.

25-3312

March 12,

2026

B

Order Denying

Petitioner’s

Constitutional Petition

U.S. District Court,

Southern District of

Indiana (Evansville

Division) Case No. 3:25-cv00067-RLY-CSW

December

9, 2025

Each appendix document is marked at the bottom of its first page with the

appropriate designation ( “Appendix A”) per Supreme Court Rule 14.1.

14

Case 3:25-cv-00067-RLY-CSW

Filed 12/09/25

Document 14

Page 1 of 4 PagelD #: 52

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

EVANSVILLE DIVISION

)

MICHAEL DAVID PLATT,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

No. 3:25-cv-00067-RLY-CSW

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING THE UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Michael D. Platt filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. The United States moves to dismiss Plaintiffs motion because it is barred under

the one-year limitation period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). The court finds it can

resolve Plaintiffs §2255 motion without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing.1

On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute

a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. (Dkt. 423).

The court entered final judgment on the same day. (Dkt. 428). Plaintiff did not appeal

the judgment of conviction.

Section 2255(f) provides that motions to vacate have a one-year statute of

limitations which begins to run from the latest of: (1) the date on which the judgment of

conviction becomes final; (2) the date on which an unlawful or unconstitutional

1 No evidentiary hearing is required to address Plaintiffs motion because he has not "allege[d]

facts that, if proven, would entitle him to relief." Sandoval v. United States, 574 F.3d 847, 850

(7th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted).

1

Case 3:25-cv-00067-RLY-CSW

Document 14

Filed 12/09/25

Page 2 of 4 PagelD #: 53

government-created impediment to filing has been removed; (3) the date on which the

right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly

recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral

review; or (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim presented could have been

discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Only Section

2255(f)(1) applies. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion was due one year after his judgment

of conviction became final.

If a criminal defendant does not appeal the judgment of conviction, his conviction

becomes final when his opportunity to appeal expires. Juarez v. United States, No. 18-

3309, 2022 WL 799066, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2022) ("If a defendant does not appeal,

his conviction becomes final when his opportunity to appeal expires.") (citing United

States v. Clay, 537 U.S. 522, 524-25, 532 (2003)). Plaintiffs conviction became final 14

days after judgment was entered. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). Therefore, Plaintiff s judgment of

conviction became final on December 25, 2023. He did not file his motion until March

27, 2025—three months too late.

Plaintiff argues the court should disregard the statute of limitations because "[t]he

Fifth Amendment prohibits the imposition of both incarceration and probation for the

same offense without express authority, and no such authority exists in this matter." (Dkt.

10 at 4). Contrary to Plaintiffs position, his sentence was not unconstitutional. Plaintiff

received a term of imprisonment of 60 months, followed by supervised release—not

2

Case 3:25-cv-00067-RLY-CSW

Document 14

Filed 12/09/25

Page 3 of 4 PagelD #: 54

probation—for three years. (Crim.2 Dkt. 428). Consequently, the court rejects Plaintiffs

argument and finds his motion to vacate is barred by the statute of limitations.

The United States' Motion to Dismiss Michael Platt's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. §

2255 (Dkt. No. 9) is GRANTED. Judgment consistent with this Order shall issue, and

the Clerk shall docket a copy of this Order in No. 3:20-cr-00017-RLY-CSW-12. The

motion to vacate shall also be terminated in the underlying criminal action. (See Crim.

Dkt. 461).

Lastly, a habeas petitioner does not have the absolute right to appeal a district

court's denial of his habeas petition. Rather, he must first request a certificate of

appealability. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335 (2003); Peterson v. Douma,

751 F.3d 524, 528 (7th Cir. 2014). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c),

the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find "it

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right"

and "debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,484 (2000). The court therefore DENIES a certificate of

appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of December 2025.

RICHARE\L. YOUNG, JUDGE

United Stated-District

strict Court

Southern District of Indiana

2 The cause number of Plaintiffs criminal case is 3:20-cr-00017-RLY-CSW.

3

Case: 25-3312

Filed: 03/12/2026

Document: 8

Pages: 1

ISniteb JBtate (Uniirt of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 10, 2026

Decided March 12, 2026

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge

No. 25-3312

MICHAEL DAVID PLATT,

Petitioner-Appellant,

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Indiana,

Evansville Division.

v.

No. 25-cv-00067-RLY-CSW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

Richard L. Young,

Judge.

ORDER

Michael Platt filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his motion under 28

U.S.C. § 2255. We construe the notice as an implied request for a certificate of

appealability. We have reviewed the final order of the district court and the record on

appeal. We find no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Accordingly, the request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The motion

to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

Case 3:25-cv-00067-RLY-CSW

Filed 01/06/26

Document 22

Page 1 of 1 PagelD #:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

EVANSVILLE DIVISION

)

MICHAEL DAVID PLATT,

)

Petitioner,

)

)

v.

)

No. 3:25-cv-00067-RLY-CSW

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Respondent.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the district court certifies the

appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). This inquiry essentially boils

down to whether the appeal is frivolous. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir.

2000). An appeal of the court's ruling would be frivolous because under the most

generous reading of Plaintiff’s § 2255 motion, his claims are barred by the statute of

limitations. The Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal (Dkt. 21) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 6th day of January 2026.

RICHARUL. YQIJNG, JUDGE

United StateCDiStrict Court

Southern District of Indiana

Distribution to counsel of record via CM/ECF and by mail to:

Michael Platt

611 N. Capitol Ave.

Indianapolis, IN 46206

1