Medcafe v. USA
Filing
9
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as time-barred. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 11/16/2017) (rekc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
CLINTON MEDCAFE
(BOP Registration No. 09315-078),
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:16-CV-1787-K
(3:13-CR-295-K-(13))
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Movant Clinton Medcafe, a federal prisoner, proceeding pro se, has filed a 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. See Dkt. Nos.
2 & 4. Because his Section 2255 motion is barred by the applicable statute of
limitations, as explained below, the Court DISMISSES the motion with prejudice.
Background
Medcafe pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A). See United
States v. Medcafe, 3:13-CR-0295-K-(13) (N.D. Tex., Apr. 22, 2014), Dkt. No. 570. The
Court sentenced him to 84 months in prison with three years of supervised release. See
United States v. Medcafe, 3:13-CR-0295-K-(13) (N.D. Tex., Aug. 27, 2014), Dkt. No.
762. That judgment was entered on August 28, 2014. See id. Medcafe did not appeal.
On June 24, 2016, Medcafe filed this Section 2255 motion, which he later
1
amended. See Dkt Nos. 1 & 4. Medcafe claims that the Court erred when it applied the
career offender enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guidelines
(“U.S.S.G.”) § 4B1.1 because his prior felony convictions should not have been
considered crimes of violence or controlled substance offenses. See Dkt. No. 4 at 7-8.
The government responds that his motion is meritless and untimely, see Dkt. No. 8 at
4-8, and Medcafe has not filed a reply.
Statute of Limitations
“[Section] 2255 establishes a ‘1-year period of limitation’ within which a federal
prisoner may file a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under that
section.” Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353, 356 (2005). It states:
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section.
The limitation period shall run from the latest of –
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion
created by governmental action in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the
movant was prevented from making a motion by such
governmental action;
(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
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.
2
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Medcafe does not allege any facts that could trigger a starting date
under Sections 2255(f)(2)-(4), so his limitations period began to run when his
judgment of conviction became final. See § 2255(f)(1). His conviction became final on
September 11, 2014, when his time to file a direct appeal expired. See FED. R. APP. P.
4(b)(1)(A)(i) (stating that an appeal in a criminal case must be filed within fourteen
days of the entry of judgment); see also United States v. Plascencia, 537 F.3d 385, 388 (5th
Cir. 2008) (holding that, where a federal prisoner does not file a direct appeal, his
conviction becomes final when his time to do so expires). The one-year limitations
period expired in September 2015, so Medcafe’s Section 2255 motion is untimely
absent equitable tolling.
“[T]he statute of limitations in § 2255 may be equitably tolled in ‘rare and
exceptional circumstances.’” United States v. Patterson, 211 F.3d 927, 930 (5th Cir.
2000). “The doctrine of equitable tolling preserves a [party’s] claims when strict
application of the statute of limitations would be inequitable.” Davis v. Johnson, 158
F.3d 806, 810 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Lambert v. United States, 44 F.3d 296, 298 (5th
Cir. 1995)). It “applies principally where [one party] is actively misled by the [other
party] about the cause of action or is prevented in some extraordinary way from
asserting his rights.” See Coleman v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 398, 402 (quoting Rashidi v. Am.
President Lines, 96 F.3d 124, 128 (5th Cir. 1996)). In the context of a habeas petition
filed by a state prisoner, the Supreme Court has stated that a habeas petitioner is
3
entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows that: 1) he has been pursuing his rights
diligently, and 2) some extraordinary circumstance prevented a timely filing. Holland
v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010), citing Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418
(2005).
Here, Medcafe presents no argument or evidence that extraordinary
circumstances prevented him from filing his motion to vacate earlier, and no grounds
for equitable tolling are apparent to the Court. Because Medcafe has not met his
burden to establish circumstances warranting equitable tolling, his Section 2255
motion is untimely.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence
brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as
time-barred.
SO ORDERED.
Signed November 16th, 2017.
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?