Muhammad v. United States, No. 12-2923 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseMovant was convicted of aiding and abetting the robbery of a credit union, and aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during and in relation to the credit union robbery. On appeal, movant challenged the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion as untimely. The court concluded that movant's five-month confinement in a special housing unit did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting the application of equitable tolling; equitable tolling did not apply in this instance where movant argued that he mistakenly relied upon his attorney's assertion that she would file a section 2255 motion on his behalf where the attorney's actions did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance; and even if the attorney's actions had constituted an extraordinary circumstance, movant did not act with diligence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.
Court Description: Prisoner case - habeas. The district court did not err in denying this section 2255 motion on the ground it was untimely; equitable tolling of the filing deadline was not warranted based on Muhammad's five-month detention in a special housing unit; nor did his mistaken reliance on his attorney to file the motion warrant tolling where Muhammad failed to act with reasonable diligence to determine if the attorney filed and pursued the motion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.