In re: Steven Jackson, No. 16-13536 (11th Cir. 2016)Annotate this Case
Petitioner filed a pro se application for permission to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States. Because binding precedent does not dictate that petitioner has three Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), predicates despite Johnson, the court concluded that petitioner has made a prima facie showing that his application contains a Johnson claim. The court also concluded that the fact that petitioner's motion will be filed after the one-year deadline does not require the court to deny him permission to file the motion. The court concluded that whether a section 2255 motion will be timely is not relevant to whether the applicant can obtain permission to bring a second or successive section 2255 motion, in cases where the parties have not had fair notice and an opportunity to present their positions on the limitations bar. Neither the government nor petitioner has presented a position about a limitations defense in this case. Accordingly, the court granted the application to file a new section 2255 motion and leave questions about the timeliness of that motion to the district court to decide in the first instance.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on November 27, 2017.