Shields v. USA

Filing 7

ORDER denying 6 Motion for reconsideration. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 11/7/2013. (KC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
CENTRAL DIVISION
JUSTIN SHIELDS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. 13-3005-KES

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff, Justin Shields, filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).1 Docket 6. Shields requests relief from
this court’s order denying Shields’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Docket
5), and believes he is entitled to such relief because, although he failed to file
his § 2255 petition within the applicable one-year statute of limitations, he is
actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted, and thus qualifies
for equitable tolling of the otherwise stringent one-year statute of limitations.
Equitable tolling applies to an untimely filed § 2255 petition “where
extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control make it impossible to
file a petition on time, or where a defendant’s conduct lulls the prisoner into
inaction.” Maghee v. Ault, 410 F.3d 473, 476 (8th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
Additionally, a petitioner can overcome the expiration of the one-year statute of
1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the court may
“relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for various
enumerated reasons, including “any . . . reason that justifies relief.”

limitations by proving actual innocence. McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924
(2013). Notably, however, the actual innocence exception is only triggered
“when a petition presents ‘evidence of innocence so strong that a court cannot
have confidence in the outcome of the trial unless the court is also satisfied
that the trial was free of nonharmless constitutional error.’ ” Id. at 1936
(quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 316 (1995)).
In the instant case, Shields has failed to provide evidence of actual
innocence. To the contrary, the record establishes that Shields pleaded guilty
to kidnapping. Docket 1 at 2. His claim of actual innocence is therefore
insufficient to overcome the statute of limitations which the court originally
concluded barred Shields from relief under § 2255. See Neuendorf v. Graves,
110 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1159 (N.D. Iowa 2000) (citing United States v. Lurie, 207
F.3d 1075, 1077 n.4 (8th Cir. 2000)) (a claim of actual innocence “fails where
the petitioner’s ‘actual innocence’ claim consists of nothing more than an
unsupported allegation”). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Shields’s motion for reconsideration (Docket 6) is denied.
Dated November 7, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2