JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL without prejudice. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 12/22/16. (gh, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ISOME JOHNSON,
Civil Action No. 16-7816 (CCC)
Petitioner,
v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

Pro se Petitioner Isome Johnson, a prisoner confined at the United States Penitentiary,
Allenwood in White Deer, Pennsylvania, seeks to file a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence pursuant to 2$ U.S.C.

§ 2255 (“Motion”). Petitioner has declared that this Motion sets

forth all grounds for relief and is his one, all-inclusive motion. (ECF No. 1 at 15.) At this time,
the Court must screen the amended motion for summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.
In the Motion, Petitioner raises two claims under Beckles v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2510
(2016), a grant of certiorari for a case that has yet to be decided by the Supreme Court. (ECF No.
1 at 5-6.) However, Beckles was simply an order granting certiorari—no decision in Beckles has
been issued. See https :I/www. supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/1 5-8544.htm
(Supreme Court docket of Beckles showing that no decision has been issued) (visited Dec. 22,
2016). Given that Beckles has yet to be decided, Petitioner’s right to relief has not yet accrued,
and the Motion does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As such, Petitioner must
wait until a decision has been issued under Beckles before filing another petition, provided that

1

Beckles eventually recognizes “the right asserted [and] if that right [is] retroactively applicable to
cases on collateral review.” 28 U.S.C.
IT IS therefore on this

§ 2255(f)(3).1

2_ day of

,

2016,

ORDERED that the Petition is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon Petitioner by regular mail,
and shall CLOSE the file.

C
Claire C. Cecchi
U.S.D.J.

The Court notes that it is not construing the Motion as raising a claim under Johnson v. United
States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), a decision from which the issues in Beckles derive from. Because
Johnson was decided on June 26, 2015, and the instant Motion was not filed until October 18,
2016, Petitioner is time-barred from raising any claims under Johnson. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)
(stating that any claim “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” must be brought on a § 2255 motion within one year from the date
the right was recognized).
2