134 F.4th 437
6th Cir.2025Background
- Allen Walker pleaded guilty to drug charges and was sentenced in 2015; he did not file a direct appeal.
- Walker requested an extension to file a § 2255 habeas motion and later argued his pro se August 2016 letter should count as a timely § 2255 filing or that the deadline should be tolled.
- The government opposed only on merits, not timeliness; the district court sua sponte deemed the § 2255 motion untimely and denied it.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit remanded to decide if the government’s conduct was waiver or forfeiture of the statute of limitations defense, with instructions that waived defenses cannot be revived.
- On remand, the district court found forfeiture, considered timeliness, and again denied Walker relief; Walker appealed, focusing on whether the government’s conduct constituted waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Walker's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failing to raise statute of limitations defense was waiver or forfeiture | Government intentionally waived, so court cannot raise defense sua sponte | Government merely forfeited, so court could consider it | Waiver: Government, by not raising timeliness despite clear awareness, intentionally abandoned the defense |
| Standard for finding waiver vs. forfeiture | Implied waiver is sufficient; look at government’s conduct and knowledge | Waiver must be explicit; silence is forfeiture, not waiver | Express statements not required; course of conduct and facts here show waiver |
| Court’s authority to raise statute of limitations sua sponte | Not allowed if government waived; allowed only if forfeited | Allowed if only forfeited | Not allowed: waiver occurred, so court could not dismiss for untimeliness |
| Remedy | Proceed to merits of § 2255 motion | Uphold untimeliness dismissal | District court must consider merits; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006) (district court can consider untimeliness sua sponte if government has not waived defense)
- Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463 (2012) (a court may not assert a waived statute of limitations defense)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (distinction between waiver and forfeiture)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (implied waiver can be shown by course of conduct)
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) (waiver is intentional abandonment of a known right)