United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
ANDRE D. THOMPSON, Movant,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on movant's motion to vacate,
set aside, or correct sentence brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. The motion appears to be time-barred, and the
Court will order movant to show cause why the motion should
not be summarily dismissed.
April 25, 2017, movant pled guilty to one count of felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). United States v.
Thompson, No. 4:16-CR-355-RLW-l (E.D. Mo. Aug. 10,
2016). On April 26, 2018, the Court sentenced movant to a
term of 62 months' imprisonment and two years of
supervised release. Movant did not appeal.
August 2, 2019, movant filed a pro se document
construed as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 1. On April 20,
2019, the Court found the motion defective because it had not
been signed by movant and it had not been drafted on a Court
form, as required by local and federal rules. ECF No. 4. The
Court ordered movant to file a signed, amended motion with
the Court, which movant did on September 5, 2019. ECF No. 5.
Movant asserts one ground for relief in his amended motion:
that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is
4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings for the
United States District Courts provides that a district court
may summarily dismiss a § 2255 motion if it plainly
appears that the movant is not entitled to relief.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f):
A 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.
district court may consider, on its own initiative, whether a
habeas action is barred by the statute of limitations.
Day v. McDonough,547 U.S. 198, 210 (2006). However,
before dismissing a habeas action as ...