Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Staples

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah Division

September 21, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
v.
LYDELL DEVON STAPLES DEFENDANT/MOVANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          THOMAS B. RUSSELL, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         On preliminary consideration under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases in the United States District Courts, the Court ordered Defendant/Movant Lydell Devon Staples to show cause why his pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (DN 40) should not be denied and his action dismissed as untimely. The 30-day period in which to respond has expired with no response by Staples.

         I.

         On March 6, 2013, the Judgment and Commitment Order (DN 27) was entered after Staples pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine base (count 1) and distribution of marijuana (count 2). He was sentenced to 151 months in prison on count 1 and 60 months on count 2 to be served concurrently for a total term of 151 months. Staples did not appeal. He filed the instant § 2255 motion on June 20, 2017.[1]

         II.

         Section 2255 provides for a one-year limitations period, which shall run from the latest of:

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action;
(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 or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

§ 2255(f).

         As the Court explained in its prior Memorandum and Order (DN 41), the judgment became final on March 20, 2013, upon the expiration of the fourteen-day period for filing a notice of appeal. The one-year statute of limitations therefore ran on March 20, 2014, and Staple's § 2255 motion was filed over three years after the statute of limitations expired.

         The § 2255 motion indicated that Staples believed that his motion is timely because it was filed within one year of Mathis v. United States, U.S., 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016). However, the Supreme Court's decision in Mathis did not create a new rule of law applying retroactively to cases on collateral review, and thus the one-year period set forth in § 2255(f)(3) was not triggered. See In re Lott, 838 F.3d 522, 523 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (finding that inmate “failed to make a prima facie showing that Mathis . . . set forth new rules of constitutional law that have been made retroactive to cases on collateral review”); United States v. Taylor, 672 F.App'x 860, 864 (10th Cir. 2016) (holding that “Mathis did not announce a new rule”); Brodie v. United States, No. 5:12CR-13-TBR, 2017 WL 2540570, at *2 (W.D. Ky. June 9, 2017) (“[T]he Supreme Court's decision in Mathis did not create a new rule of law which applies retroactively to cases on collateral review.”); Atkinson v. United States, No. 1:16-cv-67, 2017 WL 1227876, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 4, 2017) (finding that “Mathis did not announce a new constitutional rule”).

         Because § 2255's one-year statute of limitations is not jurisdictional, it is subject to equitable tolling. Dunlap v. United States, 250 F.3d 1001, 1007 (6th Cir. 2001). Therefore, before dismissing the motion as time-barred, the Court provided Staples with an opportunity to show whether equitable ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.