Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_05-cv-06038/USCOURTS-arwd-6_05-cv-06038-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

v. Civil No. 05-6038

Criminal No. 4:98cr60018

TYRONG RON GODBOLD DEFENDANT/MOVANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the courtisthemotion ofthe defendant/movant, Tyrong Ron Godbold (hereinafter

“Godbold”), to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. #33)

Factual and Procedural Background:

 Godbold is an inmate in the Federal Correctional Institution, Memphis, Tennessee. On

July 20, 1998, Godbold was convicted of one count of distribution of cocaine base in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On November 23, 1998, Godbold was sentenced to 48 months

imprisonment. The judgment was entered on December 2, 1998. (Doc. #24)

On August 25, 2003 and September 3, 2003, amended judgments were entered in order to correct

Godbold’s USM number. (Doc. #26 & 27) 

On June 13, 2005, Godbold filed the pending motion. (Doc. #33) The United States

filed a response on September 2, 2005. (Doc. #37) .

On its face, the pending § 2255 motion was filed well outside of the one-year limitation

period provided under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, accordingly, on November 3, 2005, the undersigned

entered an order requiring Godbold to complete and return a questionnaire/addendum to his

motion, explaining why he failed to file the pending motion within the specified one-year time

period. (Doc. #38) See Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States

Case 6:05-cv-06038-RTD Document 2 Filed 01/27/06 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

District Courts (hereinafter “Section 2255 Rules”), Rule 7(a) & (b) (the judge may direct the

parties to expand the record by submitting additional materials including answers under oath to

written interrogatories propounded by the judge). On November 23, 2005, Godbold filed the

completed questionnaire/addendum to motion. (Doc. #39)

Discussion:

In his pending § 2255 motion, Godbold asserts the following claims:

a. that, pursuant to a plea agreement, his federal sentence was to run

concurrently with a state sentence, however, he was required to serve the

state sentence before commencing his federal sentence; and, 

 

b. he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in that his attorney failed

to satisfy the requirements necessary in order for his federal and state

sentences to run concurrently.

(Doc. #33)

In response to the § 2255 motion, the United States asserts inter alia that Godbold’s

claims are barred by limitations. (Doc. #37) We agree. 

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;

(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

Case 6:05-cv-06038-RTD Document 2 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

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

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat.

1220, 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

A judgment becomes final for purposes of § 2255 ten days after its entry. See Wims v.

United States, 225 F.3d 186, 190 (2nd Cir. 2000)(for purposes of § 2255 conviction becomes

final on the day the time to appeal expires); see also Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule

4(b)(1)(A)(in a criminal case, a defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within ten days after

the entry of the judgment or order being appealed, or within ten days after the filing of the

government’s notice of appeal, whichever occurs later). In this case, three judgments were

entered, the first on December 2, 1998, (Doc. #24) and then two amended judgments, the last on

September 3, 2003. (Doc. #26 & 27)

Even if it is assumed that the one year limitations period of § 2255 did not begin to run

until September 13, 2003 - ten days after the entry of the final amended judgment - Godbold’s

pending motion is untimely as it was not filed until one year and nine months later, nine months

after the expiration of the one-year limitations period of the statute. 

In his addendum to motion, Godbold seeks to explain his delay in filing his motion as

follows:

a. After Godbold’s imprisonment in the Arkansas Department ofCorrection

(“ADC”) following his sentencing, the attorney that represented him

through his conviction and sentence, former Federal Defender George

Lucas, moved to Mississippi and Godbold had difficulty contacting him;

 

b. Once located, Lucas did not respond promptly to the telephone calls of

Godbold and his family; 

Case 6:05-cv-06038-RTD Document 2 Filed 01/27/06 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

1

Indeed, Godbold alleges that he realized immediately upon his transport to the ADC that his understanding of how

his sentence was to be served was not being carried out.

-4-

c. When contacted, Lucas provided no help to Godbold in attacking the

execution of Godbold’s sentence; 

d. From December 1999 through the middle of 2002, while imprisoned in

the ADC, Godbold had no access to a law library or materials with which

to compose and file pleadings with this court; and, 

e. Godbold needed the transcript of his sentencing and the clerk’s office

failed provide the transcript upon proper request and was unable to obtain

such a transcript.

(Doc.#39)

Godbold has not asserted that any impediment created by government action existed to

the filing of his § 2255 motion, he does not assert any right newly recognized by the United

States Supreme Court, nor does he allege that the facts supporting his claims could not have been

discovered through the exercise of due diligence.1 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Since Godbold’s motion was not filed within the one-year limitations period prescribed

by statute, it is apparently barred by limitations. However, the doctrine of equitable tolling is

available to federal prisoners in § 2255 proceedings. United States v. Martin, 408 F.3d 1089,

1092 (8th Cir. 2005). Nevertheless, equitable tolling is reserved for situations in which

“‘extraordinary circumstances’” beyond a prisoner’s control prevent timely filing,” id., or where

“the conduct of the defendant has lulled the plaintiff into inaction.” Kreutzer v. Bowersox, 231

F.2d 460, 463 (8th Cir. 2000). We find that the reasons cited by Godbold do not warrant the

application of equitable tolling.

First, Godbold’s inability to access a law library and materials with which to compose

and file motions with this court, according to Godbold, are conditions which existed from 1999

Case 6:05-cv-06038-RTD Document 2 Filed 01/27/06 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

through mid-2002, a time period prior to the filing of the last amended judgment and prior to the

commencement of the one-year limitations period.

Further, in any event, such circumstances are not sufficient to equitably toll the

limitations period. “[A] lack of legal knowledge or legal resources” does not warrant the

application of equitable tolling.” Id.; see also 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”). 

Godbold also attempts to blame his delay upon his inability to communicate with his

former attorney, former Assistant Federal Defender Lucas, who represented him through

sentencing, and Lucas’ alleged failure to assist Godbold with his § 2255 motion. We find no

actions by Lucas, during the pertinent time period, which would make equitable tolling

applicable.

This is not a case, such as that in United States v. Martin, where equitable tolling was

found in view of the facts including: the movant’s appellate counsel agreed to file a § 2255

motion in behalf of the movant following the conclusion of the direct appeal; and, the attorney

falsely represented that the motion had been filed and assured that relief could be expected.

United States v. Martin, 408 F.3d at 1090-92; see also Beery v. Ault, 312 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir.

2002)(ineffective assistance of counsel due to an attorney’s negligence or mistake has not

generally been considered an extraordinary circumstance such as would support equitable

tolling).

 Further, since there is no constitutional right to “constitutionally effective counsel” in a

§ 2255 proceeding, the fact that Godbold has not been represented by post-conviction counsel

Case 6:05-cv-06038-RTD Document 2 Filed 01/27/06 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

or that Lucas did not give Godbold accurate instructions as to how to proceed would not toll the

running the one-year time limit established under § 2255. See Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d

957, 963-64 (8th Cir. 2004); United States v. Craycraft, 167 F.3d 451, 455 (8th Cir. 1999)(no

right to counsel in §2255 proceeding). 

Finally, Godbold cites his inability to procure a copy of the transcript of his sentencing

as excusing his delay in filing the pending motion. Godbold’s claims are straightforward and

we see no reason why he would have been unable to file a § 2255 motion asserting these claims

without the use of a sentencing transcript, particularly since this court has the authority and the

obligation to order and review “transcripts and records of prior proceedings” if the motion is not

dismissed. Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Courts, Rule

8(a). Accordingly, equitable tolling does not apply based upon this contention.

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 above, it is determined that no evidentiary hearing is required and that

the pending § 2255 motion should be dismissed as untimely filed.

Conclusion:

Therefore, it is found that Godbold’s pending § 2255 motion is barred by the one-year

Case 6:05-cv-06038-RTD Document 2 Filed 01/27/06 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

limitations provision of the statute. Accordingly, it is recommended that the motion 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.

DATED this 30th day of January 2006.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

HON. BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:05-cv-06038-RTD Document 2 Filed 01/27/06 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>