United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. SIPPEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on movant Reginald Morgan
Higgins's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket No. 1).
The petition appears to be time-barred. Therefore, for the
reasons discussed below, the Court will order movant to show
cause why the motion should not be summarily dismissed.
indictment filed June 27, 2017, movant was charged with three
separate counts: (1) possession with intent to distribute
heroin and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1); (2) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a
drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1)(A)(i); and (3) felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(2). United States v.
Higgins, No. 4:17-cr-00431-RWS-1 (E.D. Mo.). On January
5, 2018, movant pled guilty to count 2, possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and count
3, felon in possession of a firearm. The Court dismissed
count 1, possession with intent to distribute heroin and
cocaine, on the government's motion. On April 13, 2018,
movant was sentenced to 60 months on count 2 and 30 months on
count 3. The sentences were run consecutively for a total of
90 months' imprisonment. Movant did not file a direct
filed the instant § 2255 motion on October 16, 2019, by
placing it in his prison's mailing system. In his motion, he
alleges ineffective assistance of counsel.
is a pro se litigant who is currently in custody at the
United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in
Springfield, Missouri. He brings this motion pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of
counsel. For the reasons discussed below, the motion appears
to be untimely, and movant will be directed to show cause why
this action should not be denied and dismissed.
Statute of Limitations
brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are subject to a
one-year limitations period. Peden v. United States,
914 F.3d 1151, 1152 (8th Cir. 2019). The
limitations period runs from the latest of four dates:
(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
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). In practice, however, the one-year
statute of limitations “usually means that a prisoner
must file a motion within one year of the date on which the
judgment of conviction becomes final.” Mora-Higuera
v. United States, 914 F.3d 1152, 1154 (8th
Timeliness Under 28 ...