Daniels v. United States of America

Filing 7

ORDER dismissing case without prejudice. All pending motions are denied as moot. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Because Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability, he is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 6/8/2017. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
WILLIE LEE DANIELS,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No: 8:17-cv-348-T-30TGW
Crim. No: 8:14-cr-265-T-30TGW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Before the Court is the Petitioner's Response (Doc. 6) 1 to the Court's Order to Show
Cause why his section 2255 motion should not be dismissed. In his response, Petitioner
argues the Court should consider his section 2255 motion under 18 U.S.C. section
2255(f)(3) because Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 195 L. Ed. 2d 604 (2016),
identified a right that was newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review. The Court disagrees because Mathis did not
announce a new rule. United States v. Taylor, 672 F. App'x 860, 864 (10th Cir. 2016)
(“Mathis did not announce a new rule. And courts applying Mathis have consistently
reached the same conclusion.”); Dawkins v. United States, 829 F.3d 549, 551 (7th Cir.
2016); In re Lott, 838 F.3d 522, 523 (5th Cir. 2016); Smith v. United States, No. CR608030, 2017 WL 1745057, at *1 (S.D. Ga. May 3, 2017); Hernandez V. United States, No.

1

Petitioner erroneously titles his response “Motion to Show Cause Why § 2255 Should
Not Be Dismissed.”

A-09-CR-513(1) LY, 2017 WL 2126877, at *1 (W.D. Tex. May 16, 2017). As such, the
Court concludes Petitioner has not shown cause why his motion should be dismissed as
time-barred.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

This cause is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

3.

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND LEAVE TO APPEAL
IN FORMA PAUPERIS DENIED
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of
appealability. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to
appeal a district court’s denial of his petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Rather, a district
court must first issue a certificate of appealability (“COA”). Id. “A [COA] may issue . . .
only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
Id. at § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, Petitioner “‘must demonstrate that reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or
wrong,’” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Petitioner has not made the requisite showing in these
circumstances.

2

Finally, because Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability, he is not
entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 8th day of June, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record

3