Sauceda v. USA

Filing 14

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that to the extent movants motion to reconsider seeks to correct the Courts Opinion, Memorandum, and Order dated October 27, 2017 to reflect that movant filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on May 1 , 2017, the motion is GRANTED. The Court will issue and Order Nunc Pro Tunc reflecting that movants motion was filed May 1, 2017.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movants motion to reconsider will be DENIED in all other respects. [ECF No. 13] 13 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 11/29/17. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ISIDORO SAUCEDA,
)
)
Movant,
)
)
v.
)
No. 4:17CV1510 HEA
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent.
)
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon movant’s motion to reconsider the denial of his
motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court will reconsider the Opinion,
Memorandum, and Order dated October 27, 2017 to correct a clerical error, but will deny
movant’s motion in all other respects.
In its Opinion, Memorandum, and Order dated October 27, 2017, the Court stated that
movant filed his § 2255 motion on May 15, 2017.
movant’s motion in the mail.

This was the date the Court received

In his motion for reconsideration, movant states he placed his §

2255 motion in the prison’s mailing system on May 1, 2017; therefore, under the mailbox rule,
his date of filing was May 1, 2017.

Movant is correct. The Court will issue an Order Nunc

Pro Tunc correcting the error.
To the extent movant seeks additional relief in his motion to reconsider, the motion will
be denied.

The Court has previously found that movant’s heart condition did not warrant

equitable tolling of his one-year statute of limitations.

In his motion to reconsider, movant

states that the Court misconstrued his language, specifically the phrase “almost incapacitated.”

1

Movant states, “What Petitioner meant by ‘almost incapacitated’ is that ‘he was incapacitated but
he was able to do basic routine acts such as taking pills, eating food, taking shower.’”
The Court notes that the medical procedure movant complains of was performed prior to
his sentencing, and therefore prior to the start of his one-year limitations period.
procedure could not have interfered with his ability to timely file his § 2255 motion.

This

See Doc.

10 (“Before the sentencing [movant] was taken to the hospital, and doctors did some surgery to
open artery for better blood flow. After the surgery petitioner has been on heavy medication.”).
To the extent movant claims side effects from his medications prevented his timely filing, he has
not provided sufficient facts demonstrating incapacitation.

“For [movant’s] medical condition

to justify the delay, he must provide sufficient facts demonstrating that hospitalization or a
medical condition incapacitated him and prevented a timely filing.”

Pawliszko v. Smith, 2012

WL 4815597, *2 (D. Minn. Oct. 10, 2012).
Based on movant’s medical records attached to his response to the show cause order,
movant was prescribed maintenance medication for his high blood pressure and heart problems
while at Great Plains Correctional Facility.

The Court cannot find this medication or any side

effects caused “extraordinary circumstances” beyond his control that made it impossible to file
his motion on time.

Movant’s medical records show that he complained of “some nausea and

vomiting” on one occasion, January 24, 2017, but that these problems had resolved by the time
he received medical attention.

There is no indication in his medical records that he sought

medical attention to address any alleged side effects of his medication, i.e., dizziness, blurred
vision, stomach problems.

Without any records to support his claim that his prescription

medication caused him to be incapacitated for nearly a year, the Court cannot find this medical
2

condition justified the delay.

The Court finds that movant has not demonstrated extraordinary

circumstances beyond his control, making it impossible to file his § 2255 motion on time.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that to the extent movant’s motion to reconsider seeks to
correct the Court’s Opinion, Memorandum, and Order dated October 27, 2017 to reflect that
movant filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on May 1, 2017, the motion is GRANTED. The
Court will issue and Order Nunc Pro Tunc reflecting that movant’s motion was filed May 1,
2017.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant’s motion to reconsider will be DENIED in
all other respects. [ECF No. 13]
Dated this 29th day of November, 2017

___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3