Aaron Deroo v. United States
709 F.3d 1242
8th Cir.2013Background
- Deroo pled guilty in 1997 to felon in possession of ammunition and was sentenced to 210 months' imprisonment.
- He was resentenced twice, in 2000 and 2001, with a resentencing PSR listing prison disciplinary actions.
- Deroo was not provided documentation for the disciplinary actions nor notified of his right to appeal those actions.
- He sought FOIA documents in 2008; the BOP produced them in 2010, and he pursued administrative and then judicial challenges.
- In 2011 he filed a §2241 petition alleging due process violation from relying on an expunged disciplinary action; district court denied; Seventh Circuit affirmed.
- In June 2011 he moved under §2255 to vacate, arguing the resentencing relied on an erroneous PSR; the district court denied as time-barred but issued a COA; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under §2255(f)(4) | Deroo contends expungement is a 'new fact' triggering §2255(f)(4). | Government asserts delay defeats diligence; expungement was not timely discovered. | Timeliness not satisfied; delay not diligent, motion untimely. |
| Diligence under §2255(f)(4) | Deroo acted diligently upon discovering the expungement; prompt action once aware. | Deroo waited six years post-resentencing to seek documentation that would reveal the expungement; not diligent. | Lack of diligence; Johnson used as comparison; motion untimely. |
| Equitable tolling viability | Equitable tolling could save timely presentation despite delays. | Equitable tolling requires two elements; extraordinary circumstances not shown; diligence lacking. | Equitable tolling not established; window remains narrow. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (new fact can trigger §2255(f)(4), but diligence required)
- Anjulo-Lopez v. United States, 541 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 2008) (diligence required to invoke §2255(f)(4))
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Chambers v. United States, 106 F.3d 472 (2d Cir. 1997) (a §2255 relief petition is not second or successive when prior petitions were under §2241)
- Hodge v. United States, 602 F.3d 935 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of §2255 denial; limitations period governs)
- Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2002) (execution of sentence; distinction from collateral relief)