Stewart v. United States
89 F. Supp. 3d 993
E.D. Wis.2015Background
- Petitioner Jermaine Stewart pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute ≥1 kg heroin resulting in death and was sentenced to 300 months on March 1, 2011; Seventh Circuit affirmed on July 3, 2013 and denied rehearing en banc on August 23, 2013.
- Stewart filed a § 2255 motion on January 20, 2015 asserting (1) Burrage-related challenge to death-result enhancement, (2) plea coerced/duress, (3) actual innocence (heroin did not cause deaths), and (4) misapplication of the ACCA/sentence enhancements.
- The district court screened the § 2255 motion and found it prima facie untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1) (finality Nov. 21, 2013; one-year deadline Nov. 21, 2014); Stewart filed in Jan. 2015.
- Court examined statutory exceptions (§ 2255(f)(2)–(4)) and common-law exceptions (actual-innocence gateway and equitable tolling) and found none clearly applicable on the face of the petition.
- Court noted Stewart previously filed a pro se “motion to recall mandate” in the Seventh Circuit (Aug. 12, 2014) raising Burrage-like arguments; court questioned whether that filing should be treated as a prior § 2255 (i.e., making the present motion second or successive) but declined to dismiss on that ground without briefing.
- Because timeliness, successiveness, and merits concerns remained, the court ordered the respondent to brief those issues within 30 days, allowed Stewart a response, and held the § 2255 motion in abeyance; IFP request denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under § 2255(f)(1) | Stewart filed Jan 20, 2015; argues tolled/should be timely (implied) | Judgment final Nov 21, 2013; one-year deadline Nov 21, 2014 — Stewart two months late | Motion appears untimely on its face; court orders briefing rather than dismissal |
| Statutory exceptions (§ 2255(f)(2)–(4)) | Burrage or other intervening precedent (f(3)); no gov't impediment (f(2)); no new evidence (f(4)) | Burrage not shown retroactive; no government-caused impediment; no newly discovered facts | Court finds statutory exceptions inapplicable on the face but allows briefing on Burrage issue |
| Common-law exceptions (actual innocence, equitable tolling) | Asserts actual innocence; alleges attempts to file in Northern District of Illinois (returned stamps) suggesting filing problems | No new reliable evidence presented for Schlup gateway; equitable tolling requires extraordinary diligence/circumstances | Actual-innocence gateway not satisfied; equitable tolling not clearly established — court requests further briefing |
| Successiveness / recall-of-mandate filing | Stewart contends he did not have an authorized prior § 2255; his August 12, 2014 pro se filing to recall mandate raised same issues | Courts treat motions to recall mandate as § 2255 motions; Seventh Circuit denied the motion — may render current filing second/successive absent authorization | Court expresses concern that the Aug 12, 2014 filing may be a prior § 2255 but declines to dismiss as successive without further briefing |
| Merits (Burrage / plea / ACCA/drug-weight) | Burrage: heroin must be but-for cause; plea coerced/duress; actual innocence; ACCA misapplied | Plea allocution, plea agreement, and PSR acknowledge overdose deaths and heroin as cause; no ACCA enhancement in judgment; Burrage likely not retroactive | Court finds Burrage/actual-innocence claims weak (actual innocence not cognizable standalone); plea and ACCA claims appear meritless on the record but will be addressed after briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (finality of conviction for § 2255 limitations)
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (but-for causation for death-result enhancement)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (actual-innocence gateway to review of untimely habeas petitions)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (standard for new evidence in actual-innocence gateway)
- Ford v. United States, 383 F.3d 567 (motions to recall mandate treated as § 2255 motions)
- United States v. Walker, 721 F.3d 828 (Seventh Circuit discussion of defendant's liability for deaths in distribution conspiracy)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (freestanding actual-innocence claim not established as cognizable)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling standard)
- Socha v. Boughton, 763 F.3d 674 (Seventh Circuit on equitable tolling and related precedents)