Craig v. USA

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant shall show cause, in writing and no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed as time-barred. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if movant fails to comply with this Order, this action will be dismissed without further proceedings. Show Cause Response due by 9/7/2016. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 8/16/16. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
DARWIN LYNN CRAIG,
Movant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-CV-218 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on movant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion appears to be time-barred, and the Court will
order him to show cause why it should not be summarily dismissed.
On September 3, 2013, movant pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm. On March
24, 2014, the Court sentenced him to 100 months’ imprisonment.
In the instant motion, movant argues that, in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct.
2551 (2015), he no longer qualifies as a career offender because controlled substance offenses
are no longer grounds for enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). The Supreme Court decided
Johnson on June 26, 2015. Movant placed his § 2255 motion in the prison mail system on
August 10, 2016.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f):
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The
limitation period shall run from the latest of-...
(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
...
A district court may consider, on its own initiative, whether a habeas action is barred by
the statute of limitations. Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 210 (2006). However, before
dismissing a habeas action as time-barred, the court must provide notice to the movant. Id.
A review of the instant motion indicates that it is time-barred under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(f)(3) and is subject to summary dismissal. The deadline for filing cases under Johnson
was June 27, 2016. Movant did not file this action, however, until August 10, 2016. As a result,
the Court will order him to show cause why this action should not be summarily dismissed.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant shall show cause, in writing and no later than
twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed as
time-barred.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if movant fails to comply with this Order, this action
will be dismissed without further proceedings.
Dated this 16th day of August 2016.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2