Marlandow Jeffries v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7601
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Jeffries was convicted after a jury trial and sentenced to 360 months; this Court affirmed his convictions and sentence in 2010.
- Jeffries timely filed a pro se § 2255 motion in May 2011; the government responded, and a magistrate recommended denial in October 2011; district court denied in November 2011.
- Jeffries filed a November 4, 2011 supplemental § 2255 motion asserting three additional claims dated June 1, 2011.
- The district court found no record of a June 1, 2011 filing and held an evidentiary hearing on timeliness, hearing testimony from a prison mailroom supervisor and from Jeffries.
- The district court credited the Government’s evidence and found Jeffries’ supplemental claims untimely, ruling the filing was delivered no earlier than November 4, 2011, and denied reconsideration; the opinion affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the supplemental § 2255 motion was timely under the prison mailbox rule | Jeffries argues timely delivery on June 1, 2011 | Government contends no June 1 delivery; untimely under August 9, 2011 deadline | Supplemental motion untimely |
| Who bears the burden to prove timeliness and whether logs alone suffice | Burden on prison authorities to prove timing | Burden on Government; logs corroborate timing | Government burden met; timing not June 1 |
| Whether the district court’s credibility and evidence findings were proper | Jeffries credibility should be given deference; logs insufficient | Court properly discounted Jeffries’ credibility | No clear error; credibility supported untimeliness |
| Whether the supplemental motion relates back to the timely original motion | Claims relate back; timely if not later than August 9, 2011 | No relation back; claims arise from different facts | Not timely; relation back not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prison mailbox rule for pro se filings)
- Glover v. United States, 686 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2012) (delivery date presumed when signed, unless records show otherwise)
- Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2001) (burden to show timely delivery can be met with prison records)
- Allen v. Culliver, 471 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2006) (diligence considerations may bear on timeliness)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993) (prisoners cannot monitor filing the way non-prisoners do)