Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_13-cv-08015/USCOURTS-alnd-2_13-cv-08015-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Respondent
Phillip Gene Womack
Petitioner

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PHILLIP GENE WOMACK,

Movant/Defendant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

} 

Case No.: 2:13-cv-8015-RDP

2:11-cr-373-RDP-TMP

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has before it the May 2, 2013 Motion (Doc. #1) of Phillip Gene Womack to 1

Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The United States of

America filed a Response (Doc. # 4) to the Motion, requesting that the motion be dismissed as

untimely. For the reasons that follow, the court agrees with the United States.

I. Procedural History

On November 17, 2011, Womack entered guilty pleas to one count of receipt of child

pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), and to one count of possession of child

pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B). (See Doc. in case No. 2:11-cr-373-RDPTMP-1.) Womack pleaded guilty with the benefit of a plea agreement, and, in accordance with that

agreement, counts one and three of the indictment were dismissed. (See id. at Doc. # 17.) Womack

was sentenced on March 15, 2012, and judgment was entered on March 26, 2012. (Id. at Doc. #33.) 

Womack did not appeal. 

Although his motion has a file stamp date of May 6, 2013, Womack is presumed to have filed his Motion as

1

of the date it was signed and placed in the prison mailing system. See Natson v. United States, No. 10-13045, 2012 WL

3793000 (11th Cir. Sept. 4, 2012).

FILED

 2014 Feb-07 PM 02:55

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:13-cv-08015-RDP Document 6 Filed 02/07/14 Page 1 of 4
On May 2, 2013, Womack filed the instant Motion (Doc. #1) to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct

Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to the court’s May 30, 2013 order (Doc. # 3), the United

States filed its Response (Doc. #4) on June 24, 2013. Although Womack had the opportunity to

submit additional evidence or legal arguments in reply to the response filed by the government, (see

Doc. # 5), he has not done so. 

II. Discussion

By not pursuing a direct appeal, Womack’s conviction became final on April 9, 2012, 

fourteen (14) days after judgment was entered. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(1)(A); Murphy v. United

States, 634 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2011). Section 2255(f) requires that a movant file his or her

motion within one year of “the date on which the judgment of conviction [became] final.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(f). Therefore, Womack had until April 9, 2013 to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Womack, however, did not file his Motion (Doc. #1) until May 2, 2013. As such, his Motion (Doc.

#1) is untimely and due to be dismissed.

With that being said, Womack recognizes the untimeliness of his Motion and attempts to

provide some explanation for its late filing. The court recognizes that “in the proper case § 2255's

period of limitations may be equitably tolled,” Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269, 1271 (11th

Cir. 1999); however, equitable tolling is appropriate only “when a movant untimely files because of

extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable even with diligence.” 

Id. (citations omitted). Additionally, the court is mindful that equitable tolling is an “extraordinary

remedy which is sparingly applied.” Id. at 1284-85. 

Womack has failed to meet the high burden to establish his entitlement to equitable tolling. 

See United States v. Jones, 304 F.3d 1035, 1040 (11th Cir. 2002) (movant bears burden to establish

2

Case 2:13-cv-08015-RDP Document 6 Filed 02/07/14 Page 2 of 4
equitable tolling). Womack first points to his “house arrest and [being] in transit . . . to a BOP

‘medical facility’ by May 23, 2012, (Doc. #1 at 10) as a reason to excuse the untimeliness of his

Motion. Transit to a prison facility, however, does not constitute extraordinary circumstances – in

fact, it is a regular occurrence in every case where a substantial term of imprisonment is imposed. 

Additionally, Womack fails to explain why, despite the time in transit, he was unable to file a timely

motion through the exercise of due diligence. 

Second, Womack states that “problems associated with being sent to a non-medical facility

. . . delayed Womack’s ability to begin research and facilitate his pro se 2255 motion until after his

arrival at Oakdale FCI on 5/23/12.” (Doc. # 1 at 10.) Womack does not explain how his assignment

to a non-medical facility impaired his ability to timely file his Motion, nor does he provide a basis

for equitable tolling based on any purported medical condition or allegedly necessary course of

treatment. Therefore, Womack’s claim for equitable tolling fails as he has not demonstrated

2

extraordinary circumstances that prevented him from filing a timely petition or, assuming such

circumstances existed, how he exercised due diligence. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds Movant's motion (Doc. #1) is due to be dismissed

with prejudice as time-barred. A separate order in accordance with this memorandum opinion will

be entered.

The existence of a medical condition, in and of itself, is not necessarily a basis for equitable tolling. See 2

Mazola v. United States, 294 Fed. Appx. 4820, 482 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (district court’s decision to not allow

equitable tolling except for a period of hospitalization not clearly erroneous, where petitioner failed to show that his

medical conditions constituted extraordinary circumstances during the time that he was not hospitalized or that he acted

diligently); Lang v. Alabama, 179 Fed. Appx. 650, 651 (11th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (rejecting equitable tolling

argument based on medical conditions where petitioner had anal cancer and triple bypass surgery since petitioner never

demonstrated that the medical conditions were sufficiently debilitating to constitute extraordinary circumstances and

failed to show due diligence).

3

Case 2:13-cv-08015-RDP Document 6 Filed 02/07/14 Page 3 of 4
DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

R. DAVID PROCTOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

4

Case 2:13-cv-08015-RDP Document 6 Filed 02/07/14 Page 4 of 4