Whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's procedural rulings improperly denied a litigant's substantive due process rights by creating confusion about appeal timelines and technical filing requirements

No question identified. : APPLICATION TO THE HONORABLE SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR. FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, MIDDLE DISTRICT To the Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit: Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 13.5 and 30.8, Petitioner Dmitry Kruglov respectfully applies for a 60-day extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District, in Case No. 166 MM 2024 (Petition for Allowance of Appeal from Superior Court Decision 2103 EDA 2023). The current deadline for filing the petition is August 21, 2025, assuming the time runs from the May 28, 2025, order denying the Petition Nunc Pro Tunc. This application seeks to extend that deadline to and including October 20, 2025. Although this application is filed on the due date, good cause exists for the delay in filing the application earlier, as explained below, due to confusion created by the lower court's orders regarding the operative date for commencing the 90-day period under Rule 13.1. 1. Jurisdiction The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District, entered an order on May 23, 2025, denying Petitioner's application for allowance of appeal nunc pro tunc per curiam (see Attachment 4: Order Denying Petition Nunc Pro Tunc, May 23, 2025). Subsequently, on June 18, 2025, the court entered a separate order denying the Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania’s decision in Case No. 2103 EDA 2023; however, this order appears to have been removed from the public docket, and proof of its issuance and denial is provided via the electronic service notice (see Attachment 1: Electronic Service Notice for Order Denying Petition for Allowance of Appeal, June 18, 2025). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257 and this Court's Rule 13.1, the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari expires 90 days after the entry of the judgment sought to be reviewed. If the May 23, 2025, order is deemed the final judgment, the petition is due August 21, 2025. No application for rehearing was filed, and no previous extensions have been sought or granted. 2. Reasons for Granting the Extension Good cause exists for the requested extension under Rule 13.5. Petitioner has been diligently preparing the petition but requires additional time due to the following circumstances: a. Confusion Caused by the Lower Court's Orders Regarding the Timeline The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued multiple orders that created confusion regarding the timeline for appeal. On December 26, 2024, Petitioner attempted to file a timely Petition for Allowance of Appeal just before the midnight deadline. The court’s electronic filing system repeatedly failed to upload the petition attachment, causing a delay of approximately 15 minutes past the deadline, as evidenced by documentation submitted with the subsequent Petition Nunc Pro Tunc (see Attachment 3: Delay Page, December 26, 2024). The application was rejected the next day, with payment refunded, as confirmed by the court’s electronic service notification (see Attachment 2: Electronic Service for Case Kruglov v. Federal National Mortgage Association, confirming rejection and refund, December 2024), and Petitioner was instructed to file a Petition Nunc Pro Tunc to accept the late filing. Petitioner promptly filed the Petition Nunc Pro Tunc the following day, attaching proof of the court’s website timeout, demonstrating that the 15minute delay was due to technical issues beyond Petitioner’s control. The court did not rule on this petition until May 23, 2025, denying it per curiam (Attachment 4). On June 18, 2025, the court issued another order denying the underlying Petition for Allowance of Appeal, as evidenced by the electronic service notice (Attachment 1); however, the order itself appears to