Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02081/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02081-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

v. Civil No. 05-2081

Criminal No. 99-20031

TYRONE COLLINS DEFENDANT/MOVANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the petition of the defendant/movant, Tyrone Collins (hereinafter

“Collins”), for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. # 1) This petition was

duly served upon the United States and a response to the petition was filed on July 29, 2005. (Doc.

# 37) 

Factual and Procedural Background:

Collins is an inmate in the Tucker Unit of the Arkansas Department of Corrections. On

October 28, 1999, Collins, represented by the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern

and Western Districts of Arkansas, entered a plea of guilty to a single count of causing the United

States Postal Service to deliver a threatening communication to a judge in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 876. On April 10, 2000, Collins was sentenced to 51 months imprisonment, three years

supervised release, a $2,000.00 fine and a $100 special assessment. The sentence was ordered to

run consecutively to any other term of imprisonment to which Collins had previously been

sentenced. (Doc. #26) The presentence report revealed that, as of the date of sentencing, Collins

was serving a sentence of 30 years in the Arkansas Department of Correction for kidnaping and

rape. His earliest parole eligibility date is 2018 (Doc. #24) and he remains a prisoner of the ADC.

 

Case 2:05-cv-02081-RTD Document 4 Filed 10/26/05 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Prior to the filing of the pending § 2241 petition, Collins filed no other petitions,

applications, or motions in this court with respect to his conviction and sentence. 

On September 20, 2005 the court served upon Collins a questionnaire/addendum to petition

with respect to the issue of whether Collins’ pending petition/motion was filed within the period

of limitations prescribed by § 2255. (Doc. #39) On September 27, 2005, Collins filed the

completed questionnaire/addendum to motion. (Doc. #40) 

Discussion:

In the pending petition/motion, Collins seeks relief from his sentence. Specifically, he

claims that:

a. his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion seeking a

mental evaluation of Collins and by persuading Collins to waive a jury trial by

advising him that he had a huge case load and that Collins’ case was taking up too

much time and tax dollars; and, 

b. that his plea of guilty was unlawfully induced and was not entered knowingly

and with an understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the

plea.

(Doc. #28) 

In response, the United States asserts that: Collins’ claims are improperly asserted by way

of a petition pursuant to § 2241, and, Collins’ claims are barred by limitations. (Doc. #37)

A petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 “must challenge the execution of a

sentence, not its legality.” United States v. Torres, 409 F.3d 1000, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005). Here,

Collins does not challenge the execution of the sentence. Instead, he challenges the conviction and

sentence themselves, asserting that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his

guilty plea was involuntarily entered. “A petitioner who seeks to challenge his sentence or

conviction generally must do so in the sentencing court through § 2255 and cannot use § 2241 to

Case 2:05-cv-02081-RTD Document 4 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

1Additionally, a petition under § 2241 must be filed in the federal judicial district in

which the petitioner is incarcerated. Hill v. Morrison, 349 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir.

2003)(collateral challenge to a federal conviction under § 2241 must be raised in a habeas

petition filed in the court of incarceration). .

challenge the conviction without first showing that § 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective.”

Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 2004).

It is well established that “in order to establish a remedy is ‘inadequate or

ineffective’ under § 2255, there must be more than a procedural barrier to bringing

a § 2255 petition.” (citation omitted) Furthermore, § 2255 is not inadequate or

ineffective merely because the claim was previously raised in a § 2255 motion and

denied, or because a remedy under that section is time barred. (citation omitted)

Id. see also Hill v. Morrison, 349 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 2003)(“... a § 2255 motion is not

‘inadequate or ineffective’ merely because: ... (4) ‘the petitioner has allowed the one year statute

of limitations and/or grace period to expire.’”). Further, the prisoner “has the burden of

demonstrating § 2255 relief in the sentencing court would be unavailable or ineffective.” Id.

Applying this standard, it is clear that Collins has not shown or alleged that § 2255 relief

would be unavailable or ineffective.1

Accordingly, since Collins’ claims can not be considered in the context of a petition for

relief under § 2241, we construe Collins’ claims as what they are, claims seeking relief from his

conviction and sentence generally which this court should consider as a motion to vacate, set aside

or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Construing Collins’ filing as a § 2255 motion his claims are barred by limitations. 

Section 2255 provides for a one year limitation period with respect to the filing of motions under

that section:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of -

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; 

Case 2:05-cv-02081-RTD Document 4 Filed 10/26/05 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

 

 (2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created

by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of

the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from

making a motion by such governmental action; 

 

 (3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized

by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by

the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on

collateral review; or 

 

 (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence.

28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The judgment of conviction in this case was entered on April 11, 2000 (Doc. #25), and

became final for the purpose of calculating the one-year period for the filing of a § 2255 motion

on April 21, 2000, the last day on which an appeal could have been filed. Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, Rule 4(b)(1). 

Since Collins has not asserted the existence of any of the circumstances identified in § 2255

 which might delay the commencement of the one-year limitations period, he had one-year from

April 21, 2000, or until April 21, 2001, to file his § 2255 motion.

Since Collins’ motion was not filed until May 16, 2005, over five years after his conviction

became final, it must be dismissed as barred by limitations, unless the limitations period is

considered tolled.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has not yet considered whether

equitable tolling can apply to a § 2255 motion. Paige v. United States, 171 F.3d 559, 561 (8th Cir.

1999)(it is undecided whether equitable tolling can apply to a § 2255 motion). However, even if

equitable tolling can apply, it would not be applicable in this case.

Case 2:05-cv-02081-RTD Document 4 Filed 10/26/05 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Equitable tolling is appropriate when extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s

control make it impossible to file a petition on time. Paige v. United States, 171 F.3d at 561. 

In his questionnaire/addendum to petition, filed on September 27, 2005, Collins explained

that he did not file his motion earlier because he was not advised of the existence of a limitations

period, that he has “various mental disorders” and, he is “little learned at the law.” (Doc. #40)

It is well established that ignorance of the existence of the limitations period will not toll

the running of the one-year limitations period. Cross-Bey v. Gammon, 322 F.3d 1012, 1015 (8th

Cir.2003) ("[E]ven in the case of an unrepresented prisoner alleging a lack of legal knowledge or

legal resources, equitable tolling has not been warranted"). 

 Further, “[a]s a general matter, the federal courts will apply equitable tolling because of

a petitioner’s mental condition only in cases of profound mental incapacity.” United States v. Sosa,

264 F.3d 507, 513 (4th Cir. 2004)(citing Grant v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 163 F.3d 1136, 1138

(9th Cir. 1998)). Collins does not allege such “profound mental incapacity.” Further, his

participation at the plea and sentencing proceedings and his drafting and filing of the pending

motion belie such a contention. Id. (finding relevant the fact that the movant did not assert that he

suffered from a “profound mental incapacity,” as well as the movant’s diligence in seeking to

vacate or modify his sentence, in concluding that movant’s was not an extraordinary case calling

for the application of equitable tolling). It is concluded that Collins has not alleged such

extraordinary circumstances beyond his control that made it impossible for him to file a motion

within the time period provided by statute.

It is further noted that even if Collins asserts that he is actually innocent of the subject

offense, such a claim would not avail him in the circumstances of this case. First, the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has declined to consider a claim of actual innocence in the

Case 2:05-cv-02081-RTD Document 4 Filed 10/26/05 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

context of a § 2255 proceeding where the § 2255 motion is time barred. Abdullah v. United States,

240 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 2001) Further, “[t]o establish actual innocence, petitioner must

demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror

would have convicted him.” Bously v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998) Collins entered

a plea of guilty to the subject offense and according to the presentence report, he admitted the

commission of the offense to investigating United States Marshal. Thus any claim that Collins is

actually innocent must be rejected.

Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District

Courts provides that:

If the motion has not been dismissed at a previous stage in the proceeding, the

judge, after the answer is filed and any transcripts or records of prior court actions

in the matter are in his possession, shall, upon a review of those proceedings and

of the expanded record, if any, determine whether an evidentiary hearing is

required. If it appears that an evidentiary hearing is not required, the judge shall

make such disposition of the motion as justice dictates.

For the reasons set forth below, it is determined that no evidentiary hearing is required and that the

pending § 2255 motion should be dismissed as untimely filed.

Conclusion:

Accordingly, it is found that Collins’ pending § 2255 motion is barred by the one-year

limitations provision of the statute and it is recommended that the motion should be dismissed.

The parties have ten (10) days from receipt of our report and recommendation in

which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.

Case 2:05-cv-02081-RTD Document 4 Filed 10/26/05 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

DATED this 26th day of October 2005.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

HON. BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02081-RTD Document 4 Filed 10/26/05 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>