Background
Mamady Fadima Conde filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Eastern District of North Carolina. The district court granted the Government additional time to respond to that motion.
Conde sought reconsideration of the extension and asked the district court to “sanction” any future requests for extensions. After the district court denied both requests, Conde appealed. He also moved for expedited consideration, a stay of the district court proceedings, permission to supplement the appellate record, and reassignment to a different district judge on remand.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It held that the order denying reconsideration of the response-time extension and declining to sanction future extension requests was neither a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
The court also denied Conde’s related motions for expedited consideration, a stay, supplementation of the record, and reassignment. It decided the matter without oral argument because the written materials adequately presented the facts and legal issues.
Key Takeaways
- A procedural order granting additional time to respond to a § 2255 motion is not ordinarily an immediately appealable final order.
- Denial of reconsideration does not create appellate jurisdiction when the underlying order is neither final nor otherwise immediately appealable.
- The Fourth Circuit dismissed rather than reaching the merits of Conde’s objections to the extension.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the limits on immediate appellate review during ongoing post-conviction proceedings. Litigants generally cannot interrupt a pending § 2255 case by appealing routine case-management decisions that do not finally resolve the proceeding or qualify for an exception to the final-judgment rule.