Harris v. United States of America
Filing
154
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court overrules 153 Objections by Lamont Van Harris (pro se); adopts 151 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; denies 142 MOTION With Memo in Support to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) by Lamont Va n Harris (pro se); dismisses this case and directs the Clerk to remove this action from the Court's docket; the Court denies a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 12/29/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mek)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
LAMONT VAN HARRIS,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-04104
(Criminal No. 2:11-cr-00240)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Lamont Van Harris, acting pro se, filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 142.) By Standing Order entered May 7,
2014, (ECF No. 143), this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for
submission of proposed findings of fact and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). On
February 3, 2017, Magistrate Judge Eifert issued a PF&R recommending that the Court find that
Petitioner’s motion is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) and, therefore, deny the § 2255 Motion
and dismiss this matter from the docket of the Court. (ECF No. 151.)
The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or
legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation
to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition,
failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and Petitioner’s right to
appeal this Court’s Order. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States
1
v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Eifert’s PF&R
were due on February 21, 2017. The Court received Petitioner’s objections to the PF&R on
February 20, 2017.
Petitioner’s first specific objection is to the Magistrate Judge’s finding and
recommendation that because his § 2255 motion was not timely filed, this case must be dismissed.
(ECF No. 153.) Petitioner argues that his filing was timely because after informing him that his
first § 2255 motion was frivolous, the Court granted his motion to withdraw and recharacterize
that first § 2255 motion. 1 Thus, he argues that the statute of limitations was tolled, giving
Petitioner additional time to file the current motion. He states the following in his objections:
It was Dec. 30, 2014 the court granted motion to withdraw and recharacterize. With
the help of inmate litigator movant file in April of 2015 recharacterize 2255. The
December 2014 date from the point granted the tolling time begin. Since well after
the initial October date the original deadline.
Movant like the courts to know from January 2013 until January 2014 he was Writ
to State of West Virginia. Responses and Appeals where at FCI McDowell when
taken back into Federal Custody. Which effect tolling.
Id.
Petitioner’s contentions have no basis in fact or law. To begin, the PF&R correctly
articulates the legal standards governing the one-year time limitation on filing motions under 28
U.S.C. § 2255(f). Petitioner’s one-year deadline for filing a § 2255 motion was October 7,
1
Magistrate Judge Eifert noted the following regarding the procedural posture of Petitioner’s case:
[Petitioner] unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit and then filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court,
which was denied on October 7, 2013. (ECF Nos. 111, 135 at 2, 146-1 at 8.) He filed a § 2255
action in this Court in 2014; however, subsequent to the government’s response, he moved to
withdraw his motion as frivolous. The Court granted Petitioner’s motion to withdraw and denied his
§ 2255 motion as moot. (ECF Nos. 130, 135 at 4-8, 137, 138, 139, 140.)
(ECF No. 151 at 2.)
2
2014—exactly one year from the date the United States Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari, which was the date when Petitioner’s conviction became final, as provided
in § 2255(f)(1).
Insofar as Petitioner seems to believe that the Court gave him the opportunity to
“recharacterize” his first motion—thus tolling the statute of limitations—he is incorrect. The
Court granted Petitioner’s “Motion to Withdraw 2255 Petition to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence” wherein Petitioner conceded that his petition “lack[ed] constitutional grounds” and “was
frivolously filed.” (ECF Nos. 138, 139.) In granting that motion, the Court denied Petitioner’s
§ 2255 motions and closed his civil case. The Court did not give Petitioner the opportunity to
amend the pending motions, nor did he move to do so. His subsequently filed § 2255 motion in
this case was not docketed in the closed habeas action and does not relate back to it for the purposes
of the statute of limitations. 2 (ECF No. 146.) See also Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181–82
2
There is no mandatory authority enumerating an exhaustive list of scenarios in which relation back is appropriate for
tolling purposes, but the Fourth Circuit has held in limited scenarios that § 2255 motions can relate back. See, e.g.,
United States v. Brown, 596 F. App’x 209, 210–11 (4th Cir. 2015) (finding that F.R.C.P. 15 should apply to a § 2255
motion when there has been an attempt to amend the motion, thus providing a situation where an amendment may
relate back under Rule 15, but where a movant filed a new claim more than a year after his conviction became final,
the amendment did not relate back because “the actual innocence claim does not arise from the ‘conduct, transaction,
or occurrence’ in the original pleading, it does not relate back to the date of the original pleading” (citing Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(c)(1)(B); United States v. Pittman, 209 F.3d 314, 318 (4th Cir. 2000) (holding new claim must be of same ‘time
and type’ as original claims))); United States v. Emmanuel, 288 F.3d 644, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that “if a
prisoner files a motion that is not denominated a § 2255 motion and the court at its option prefers to convert it into the
movant’s first § 2255 motion, the court shall first advise the movant that it intends to so recharacterize the motion . .
. [and] [i]f, within the time set by the court, the movant agrees to have the motion recharacterized or by default
acquiesces, the court shall consider the motion as one under § 2255 and shall consider it filed as of the date the original
motion was filed”); Smith v. Warden, No. 5:11-HC-2129-FL, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17391, at *8–9 (E.D.N.C. Feb.
10, 2012) (“If petitioner agrees to or acquiesces in the recharacterization, the court shall permit amendments to the
motion to the extent permitted by law. See United States v. Emmanuel, 288 F.3d 644, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (noting that
amendments to a § 2255 motion made after expiration of the one-year statute of limitations do not relate back to the
original motion and are therefore untimely), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128,
132-133 (4th Cir. 2008).”).
However, the instant motion and attendant circumstances do not fit into any of the case law providing for the
applicability of the relation back doctrine to analogous factual circumstances as currently before the Court, nor has
Petitioner guided the Court in locating appropriate authority supporting such a proposition. In his original § 2255
motion, which Petitioner conceded “lack[ed] constitutional grounds” and “was frivolously filed,” Petitioner claimed
3
(2001) (“We hold that an application for federal habeas corpus review is not an ‘application for
State post-conviction or other collateral review’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
Section 2244(d)(2) therefore did not toll the limitation period during the pendency of respondent’s
first federal habeas petition.”)). Petitioner’s “recharacterization” argument relies on Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15, which addresses a party’s ability to amend or supplement pleadings. (See
ECF No. 147.) However, as stated, the Court did not grant Petitioner leave to amend his pleading
in the previous case when granting his motion to withdraw and closing the case. Further, because
the filing date of the current motion does not relate back to the filing date of the § 2255 motion in
Petitioner’s previous case, as he appears to argue, the current § 2255 motion was filed after the
one-year statute of limitations ran and is time-barred.
Furthermore, Petitioner’s claim that “he was Writ to the State of West Virginia” from
January 2013 to January 2014 while all of his “[r]esponses and [a]ppeals where [sic] at FCI
McDowell when taken back into Federal Custody[,] which effect tolling,” has no impact on the
current analysis. The Court will construe his argument as an attempt at application of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(f)(2). Section 2255(f) provides that “[a] 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion
under this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-- . . . (2) the date on which the
that he was entitled to relief based on “Prosecution Misconduct an Unethic [sic] Practice; Malicious,” ineffective
assistance of counsel by both the public defender assigned to his case and the CJA counsel who was later appointed
for sentencing, “New Testimony differentiate in State after Federal,” and that the Government did not prove beyond
a reasonable doubt “possession of an ammunition offenses . . . that the defendant’s charged was ‘in or affecting
commerce.’” (ECF No. 135 at 4–11, 32.) Petitioner’s current § 2255 motion alleges similar misconduct by the
prosecutor in the underlying criminal case as well as ineffective assistance by trial counsel. (ECF No. 142 at 3–5.)
Unlike his first motion, Petitioner newly alleges that he was biased by local media coverage which “improperyly [sic]
biased the jury and adversely affected its deliberations” and “that police televised statements was inaddmissible [sic]
and inflamatory [sic] material and the ends of public jsutice [sic] by such turned on evidence stated by police and
present to the court makes a mistrial necessary.” (Id.) The similarities and differences of the two separate motions
are of no consequence to this analysis. As noted infra, Petitioner’s new § 2255 is not an amendment to the original
§ 2255 nor does this Court construe it as such, and neither does the Court find the new § 2255 to be a permissible recharacterization.
4
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 . . . .”
Section 2255(f)(2) is inapplicable here to toll the date on which the statute of limitations
began running. For § 2255(f)(2) to apply, there must be an unlawful government impediment.
Robbs v. United States, No. 3:16-cv-00538-FDW, 2017 WL 4225992, at *7 n.5 (W.D.N.C. Sept.
21, 2017). If such impediment exists, the statute of limitations will not begin to run until one year
after the removal of the impediment. Id. An impediment “speaks to hindering an effort.”
Minter v. Beck, 230 F.3d 663, 666 (4th Cir. 2000) (“Because the term ‘impediment’ is not defined
in the AEDPA, we turn to the dictionary definition for its common meaning.” (citations omitted));
see also Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 185 (4th Cir. 2014) (citing Minter and finding
that § 2244(d)(1)(B) is equivalent to § 2255(f)(2)). Petitioner does not provide any evidence that
unlawful governmental actions were taken which hindered his ability to file his motion. Petitioner
claims that his “[r]esponses and [a]ppeals” were at FCI McDowell, which the Court construes to
mean that Petitioner was unable to access the documents he needed to draft and file his motion.
There is no evidence to show that Petitioner would not have been able to get his documents if he
asked or that governmental actions were taken to hinder his ability to get those documents.
Petitioner does not allege that the Government acted unlawfully to hinder his ability to complete
the motion.
Petitioner’s last objection asks the Court to consider lock-downs at the institution where he
was being held. (ECF No. 153.) The Court will construe this objection as Petitioner asking for
the application of equitable tolling to the statute of limitations. Considering Petitioner’s claim
5
that his § 2255 motion is entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period, there is no evidence
before the Court that would allow equitable tolling to apply in this situation. “Equitable tolling
is only applicable in rare instances where a party has diligently pursued his rights, but ‘due to
circumstances external to the party’s own conduct-it would be unconscionable to enforce the
limitation period against the party and gross injustice would result.’” Harris v. Hutchinson, 209
F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2000). Petitioner does not provide any evidence that the lock-downs at
his institution have had such a negative effect on him that enforcement of the limitations period
would be unconscionable, or that the lockdowns took place at all. (ECF No. 153 at 1 (stating
conclusively that “[a]s of current lock-downs 24 hrs no access to nothing occurrs [sic] around 4 to
6 months of the calander [sic] year”).) As such, the Court will not apply equitable tolling to save
the current motion under § 2255.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, (ECF No.
153), ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 151), DENIES Petitioner’s § 2255 motion, (ECF No. 142),
DISMISSES this case, and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the Court’s docket.
The Court has also considered whether to grant a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c). A certificate will be granted only if there is “a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right.” Id. at § 2253(c)(2). The standard is satisfied only upon a showing that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by this Court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling is likewise debatable. Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 437, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). The Court concludes that the governing standard is not
satisfied in this instance. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Proceedings Under 28
6
U.S.C. § 2255, Petitioner may not appeal the Court’s denial of a certificate of appealability, but he
may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22.
The Court thus DENIES a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:
7
December 29, 2017
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?