United States v. Jackson

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Court Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the Government's Motion to Dismiss. For the following reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is granted, and the Motion to Vacate is dismissed.

BACKGROUND

In July 2016, a jury convicted Defendant Jason Allen Jackson for his role in a large-scale conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. (Docket No. 605.) The evidence at trial established that Jackson was a high-level distributor of methamphetamine for his co-Defendant Jesse Garcia, the leader of the conspiracy. At the time of the offense conduct giving rise to his conviction, Jackson was also on supervision for another federal drug offense. Indeed, Jackson had finished serving a prison sentence for a violation of the terms of his federal supervision less than two months before law enforcement began investigating his association with Jesse Garcia's drug-distribution activities. The Court ultimately sentenced Jackson to 330 months' imprisonment, a downward variance from the otherwise applicable sentencing guidelines range. (Docket No. 801.)

Shortly after sentencing, Jackson filed a pro se motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket No. 815.) In the 12-page memorandum filed in support of the motion, Jackson argued that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by, among other things, failing to sufficiently challenge search warrants and wiretaps, failing to secure a severance from co-Defendants who appeared pro se and in jail clothing, and failing to move to sever the conspiracy count (Count 1) from the possession-with-intent-to-distribute count (Count 3). (Docket No. 838.) Meanwhile, however, Jackson's attorney timely filed an appeal of his conviction and sentence. (Docket No. 818.) This Court therefore dismissed the motion to vacate without prejudice as premature. (Docket No. 860.)

Jackson's appeal argued that the Court erred in several ways: by denying his motion to suppress wiretap evidence, refusing to sever Count 1 from Count 3, allowing the admission of his prior convictions under Rule 404(b), and in fashioning his sentence. Jackson's appeal also argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence in all respects. United States v. Escobar, 909 F.3d 228 (8th Cir. 2018). Jackson sought certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, but his petition was denied on June 24, 2019.

In April 2020, Jackson sought an extension of the one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1) for filing motions to vacate. (Docket No. 984.) The Court denied his request without prejudice, noting that it lacked jurisdiction to toll the statutory limitations period before Jackson filed a motion to vacate. (Docket No. 985.) Jackson sought reconsideration (Docket No. 988) and appealed the denial of his extension request (Docket No. 1018). The Court denied the request for reconsideration without prejudice, informing

Jackson that he could instruct the Court to construe the allegations in his motion for extension of time as a timely filed § 2255 motion. (Docket No. 1028.) Jackson did not so instruct, and his appeal of the extension issue remains pending.

In January 2021, Jackson sought the appointment of counsel to assist him in filing a motion for compassionate release. (Docket No. 1101.) The Court granted that request, and counsel ultimately filed a motion for compassionate release in February 2021. (Docket No. 1107.) The Court denied Jackson's request for compassionate release in March 2021 (Docket No. 1128); Jackson did not appeal that denial.

After receiving communications from Jackson's mother regarding the difficulties Jackson was experiencing in filing a motion to vacate, the Court appointed counsel to assist him in that endeavor. (Docket No. 1140.) On July 27, 2021, counsel filed the instant Motion to Vacate. (Docket No. 1173.) The Government responded by moving to dismiss the Motion, contending that it was untimely filed. (Docket No. 1187.) In the alternative, the Government argues that the Court should stay a ruling on the Motion pending the outcome of Jackson's appeal. Jackson filed an opposition memorandum (Docket No. 1193) and with the Court's permission the Government filed a surreply (Docket No. 1198). The matter is now fully submitted.

Jackson's Motion raises five claims for ineffective assistance of counsel. He asserts that counsel failed to: (1) challenge a wiretap as he requested, (2) share discovery with him, (3) renew a request to sever Jackson's case from his co-Defendants, and (4) investigate defenses to the counts of conviction. He also claims that his attorney unreasonably advised him not to testify.

DISCUSSION

A prisoner in custody under [federal] sentence . . . claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence . . . or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Relief under § 2255 “is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries that could not have been raised on direct appeal and, if uncorrected, would result in a complete miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Apfel, 97 F.3d 1074, 1076 (8th Cir. 1996). Thus, not all claims of error in a conviction or sentence are cognizable in a § 2255 proceeding. Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). The petitioner bears the burden to establish that his conviction or sentence violated either the Constitution or federal law. United States v. Hill, 215 F.Supp.3d 823, 826 (D. Minn. 2016) (Kyle, J.).

Although § 2255 requires a Court to hold an evidentiary hearing “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, ” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b), a “petition can be dismissed without a hearing if (1) the petitioner's allegations, accepted as true, would not entitle the petitioner to relief, or (2) the allegations cannot be accepted as true because they are contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or conclusions rather than statements of fact.” Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 240 (8th Cir. 1995). Because Jackson's claims are clearly time-barred and are in any event without merit, the Court declines to hold an evidentiary hearing.

A. Timeliness

As relevant here, the statute provides that any motion to vacate a federal conviction must be filed within one year of “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). Jackson does not dispute that his Motion is untimely under the statute, because his conviction became final on June 24, 2019, and he did not file this Motion until July 27, 2021. Jackson asks the Court to equitably toll the limitations period and allow his Motion to proceed.

Equitable tolling is appropriate only if Jackson establishes “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010) (quotation omitted). Jackson contends that his confinement in a Special Housing Unit, with very limited access to legal resources, his extended stay at the Federal Transfer Center, where he was unable to access his legal materials, and the strictures of the global pandemic, amount to “extraordinary circumstance[s]” that prevented him from timely filing his Motion.

Jackson was assigned to the Special Housing Unit of the Federal Correctional Institution in Greenville, Illinois, from July 10, 2019, until he was sent to the Federal Transfer Center on March 4, 2020, in anticipation of his transfer to a facility in Kansas. The pandemic struck shortly after Jackson's arrival at the Transfer Center, and he remained there under 23.5-hours-per-day lockdown for several months. The record does not reflect the date of his arrival at his new facility, but he was there in September 2020, when his

mother wrote to the Court that the new facility was in Covid lockdown and Jackson could not access any legal resources. (Docket No. 1018.)

Assignment to a Special Housing Unit that severely restricts inmates' access to legal resources does not by itself warrant equitable tolling. See Muhammad v. United States, 735 F.3d 812, 815 (8th Cir. 2013) (stating that “equitable tolling [i]s not proper when an unrepresented prisoner claimed lack of legal resources”). Indeed, like the prisoner in Muhammad, Jackson “does not claim that he was prohibited from contacting the court or was denied any mail sent from the court” or that he lacked “access to paper and writing implements.” Id. He frequently communicated with the Court during this period, demonstrating that he had sufficient access to paper and the mail system to file a motion to vacate. Although Jackson's confinement at the Transfer Center was even more restrictive, that transfer did not occur until March 2020, nearly nine months into the 12-month limitations period. This transfer does not explain Jackson's failure to file a motion during the time before the transfer.

Jackson's ostensible inability to file a timely § 2255 motion is even more mystifying in light of his filing of a premature, thoroughly briefed, § 2255 motion shortly after his sentencing. The premature motion raises many of the same claims Jackson raises here and could have been filed at any time after Jackson's...