United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
CLINTON MEDCAFE (BOP Registration No. 09315-078),
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KINKEADE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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
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.
24, 2016, Medcafe filed this Section 2255 motion, which he
later 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.
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
1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under
this section. The limitation period shall run from the latest
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
(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
(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.
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
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
entitled to equitable tolling ...