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.

Thompson v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia

October 8, 2019

CLARENCE THOMPSON, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 8]

          IRENE M. KEELEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pending before the Court is the Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Dkt. No. 1)[1] filed by the petitioner, Clarence Thompson (“Thompson”). For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that Thompson's motion is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On September 4, 2018, Thompson filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. No. 1). On that same day, this Court sent Thompson a Notice of Deficient Pleading, notifying him of the possible dismissal of his case should he not re-file his motion on the court-approved form (Dkt. No. 3). On September 26, 2018, Thompson complied with the Notice of Deficient Pleading and re-filed his motion on the court-approved form (Dkt. No. 8).

         Following a preliminary review of Thompson's § 2255 motion under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, the Court concluded that Thompson's motion may be untimely and issued a notice pursuant to Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 707 (4th Cir. 2002), notifying Thompson that his case may be found to be untimely unless he could demonstrate why the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled (Dkt. No. 12). Despite receiving an extension of the time in which to do so, Thompson has failed to respond to the Hill v. Braxton Notice (Dkt. Nos. 15, 16).

         II. ONE-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD

         The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) established a one-year statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition under § 2255. Under the AEDPA, the limitation period runs 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 the 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 was initially 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.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1)-(4). In the Fourth Circuit, when a § 2255 motion appears untimely and the Government has not filed a motion to dismiss based on the one-year statute of limitations, courts must warn petitioners that the case is subject to dismissal absent a sufficient explanation. See United States v. Sosa, 364 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 2004); Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 707 (4th Cir. 2002).

         III. ANALYSIS

         On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2563 (2015), which held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B), was unconstitutionally vague. On April 18, 2016, the Supreme Court held that Johnson applies ...


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.