Opinion
No. 1:16-cr-00105-JAW-1
09-10-2020
VANCE CAYFORD, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On November 8, 2019, Vance Cayford moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mot. Under 28 U .S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Fed. Custody (ECF No. 89) (Def.'s Mot.). On November 19, 2020, the Magistrate Judge ordered the United States (Government) to file an answer, which the Government did on February 11, 2020. Order to Answer (ECF No. 89); Gov't's Mem. of Law and Mot. for Dismissal in Resp. to Pet'r's Pro Se 28 U .S.C. § 2255 Pet. (ECF No. 98) (Gov't's Resp.). In its response, the Government moved for a summary dismissal of Mr. Cayford's § 2255 petition, arguing that Mr. Cayford has been procedurally defaulted and has failed to make the threshold evidentiary showing necessary to pursue his actual innocence claim. Gov't's Resp. at 1-2. Mr. Cayford replied to the Government's response and argued that he had not been procedurally defaulted on his claims and that the evidentiary record was insufficient to support his conviction. Movant's Reply to Respondent's Mem. of Law and Mot. for Dismissal in Resp. to Pet'r's Pro Se 28 U .S.C. § 2255 Pet. (ECF No. 100) at 2-5.
The docket in this case indicates that Mr. Cayford's motion was not filed until November 18, 2019. However, the prison mailbox rule controls the date of filing of incarcerated individuals' filings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Morales-Rivera v. United States, 184 F.3d 109, 109-10 (1st Cir. 1999) (finding the prison mailbox rule applies to motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). Mr. Cayford's motion does not include a declaration stating when he placed the motion in the mail, he dated the motion on November 7, 2019. See Def.'s Mot. at 14. That said, Mr. Cayford's attached letter to the Clerk of Court is dated November 8, 2019. See id., Attach. 1 (ECF No. 89-1). Therefore, the Court adopts November 8, 2019 as the date of filing.
On August 4, 2020 the Magistrate Judge submitted his Recommended Decision. Recommended Decision on 28 U .S.C. § 2255 Mot. (ECF No. 101). After analyzing the arguments presented by Mr. Cayford and the Government, the Magistrate Judge recommended against an evidentiary hearing and in favor denying Mr. Cayford's motion. Id. at 11. The Magistrate Judge further recommended denying a certificate of appealability under Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases. Id. Neither Mr. Cayford nor the Government has objected to the Recommended Decision.
The Court reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; the Court has made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and the Court concurs with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge in full, for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision and determines that no further proceedings are necessary.
1. The Court AFFIRMS the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 101).
2. The Court DENIES Vance Cayford's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (ECF No. 89).
3. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 10th day of September, 2020