United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
JESSIE L. JONES, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge
26, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket #1). The Court
screened the motion on September 6, 2017 and permitted
Plaintiff to proceed on Grounds One, Two, and Four presented
in the motion. (Docket #3 at 5). It noted, however, that the
motion suffered from a number of procedural defects,
including that the statute of limitations seemed to have
passed and Petitioner may be in procedural default.
Id. at 2-4. Nevertheless, given the limited review
appropriate at the screening stage, the Court left it to the
government to argue such procedural failings in its response
to Petitioner's motion. Id. at 4.
September 22, 2017, the government filed its response.
(Docket #4). It argued that both of the above-identified
procedural issues barred the entirety of Petitioner's
motion. Id. Petitioner's reply, submitted on
November 6, 2017, offered only one page of even arguably
relevant material. (Docket #6 at 2). Petitioner contends that
the statute of limitations has not expired on Ground One
because it is based on the Supreme Court's
Mathis decision, handed down on June 23, 2016.
Id.; Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct.
2243 (2016). However, as the Court already explained in the
screening order, Mathis did not announce a new right
such that Petitioner's one-year limitations period would
run from the date of that decision. (Docket #3 at 2-3); 28
U.S.C. §2255(f); Brooks v. United States, No.
17-2168, 2017 WL 3315266, at *3-4 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 3, 2017).
The remainder of Petitioner's reply is a merits argument
related to Ground One lifted verbatim from his opening brief.
Compare (Docket #2 at 2-6) with (Docket #5
thus fails to offer a meritorious response to the
government's request for dismissal as to any of his
grounds for relief. Though identified in the Court's
screening order, and argued by the government in its
response, Petitioner has chosen not to argue that the statute
of limitations should be equitably tolled in his case.
(Docket #3 at 3-4); (Docket #4 at 3-5). Similarly, Petitioner
has not countered the government's assertion that his
failure to appeal places him in procedural default. (Docket
#3 at 4 n.1); (Docket #4 at 5-6).
Court need only reach the timeliness issue to find that
dismissal is warranted. The operative judgment in
Petitioner's case was issued on December 15, 2015. His
motion came more than six months after the applicable
one-year limitations period expired. 28 U.S.C. §
2255(f). Without an application of equitable tolling, the
Court must conclude that Petitioner's motion was filed
too late. His motion must, therefore, be dismissed.
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases,
“the district court must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
applicant.” To obtain a certificate of appealability
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), Petitioner must make a
“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right” by establishing that “reasonable jurists
could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
that the issues presented were adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal citations
omitted). Further, when the Court has denied relief on
procedural grounds, the petitioner must show that jurists of
reason would find it debatable both that the “petition
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right” and that “the district court was correct
in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). As explained above, no reasonable
jurist would debate whether Petitioner's motion should be
decided differently; as a consequence, the Court must deny
him a certificate of appealability.
the Court closes with some information about the actions that
Petitioner may take if he wishes to challenge the Court's
resolution of this case. This order and the judgment to
follow are final. A dissatisfied party may appeal this
Court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit by filing in this Court a notice of appeal within
thirty days of the entry of judgment. See Fed. R.
App. P. 3, 4. This Court may extend this deadline if a party
timely requests an extension and shows good cause or
excusable neglect for not being able to meet the 30-day
deadline. See Id. 4(a)(5)(A). Moreover, under
certain circumstances, a party may ask this Court to alter or
amend its judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) or ask for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b). Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) must be filed within 28 days of the entry of
judgment. The Court cannot extend this deadline. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2). Any motion under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b) must be filed within a reasonable time,
generally no more than one year after the entry of the
judgment. The Court cannot extend this deadline. Id.
A party is expected to closely review all applicable rules
and determine what, if any, further action is appropriate in
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion
to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to
Section 2255 (Docket #1) be and the same is hereby
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same
is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice; and
IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of
appealability be and ...