Jackson v. United States of America

Filing 20

ORDER denying 19 Motion to Supplement Petition. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 8/26/16. (Anderson, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
NICKELL JACKSON,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
No. 13-2731-STA-dkv
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
_____________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is Petitioner Nickell Jackson’s pro se Motion to Supplement his § 2255
Motion (ECF No. 19) filed on August 25, 2016. Jackson seeks leave to supplement his § 2255
with an argument that his prior burglary convictions under Tennessee law no longer qualify as
crimes of violence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). For support Jackson cites
the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mathis v. United States, No. 15-6092, June
23, 2016. The Court finds that Jackson’s Motion to Supplement is not well taken. The Court
dismissed all claims in Jackson’s initial § 2255 on May 18, 2016.

The Court dismissed

Jackson’s remaining claim for relief under Johnson v. United States on August 17, 2016, and
entered judgment.

According to Jackson’s certificate of service, he mailed his Motion to

Supplement on August 23, 2016. However, Jackson’s Motion does not show why the Court
should disturb what is now a final judgment.
Moreover, Jackson’s argument appears to be that Mathis was an intervening change in
controlling authority. The Supreme Court held in Mathis that “the elements of Mathis’s crime of
conviction (Iowa burglary) cover a greater swath of conduct than the elements of the relevant

1

ACCA offense (generic burglary)” and therefore did not meet the ACCA’s generic definition of
burglary. However, the Court held in its order dismissing Jackson’s claim for Johnson relief that
under Sixth Circuit precedent, Jackson’s burglary convictions under Tennessee law continued to
be qualifying violent felonies under the ACCA’s enumerated offenses clause. Nothing in Mathis
altered the Sixth Circuit’s previous holding in United States v. Jones, 673 F.3d 497 (6th Cir.
2012). As such, the Court remains bound to apply Jones. Therefore, Jackson’s supplemental
claim based on Mathis would be futile. The Motion to Supplement is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: August 26, 2016.

2