Mayard v. United States

Background

Andre Mayard, who was incarcerated at FCI Ray Brook, challenged his federal conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He had pleaded guilty to two drug-conspiracy counts and received consecutive sentences of 240 months and 60 months, for a total of 300 months. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed his appeal on July 17, 2020.

Mayard sent the district court a letter asking for additional time to file a § 2255 motion. He claimed that trial counsel had told him a murder-related sentencing enhancement would not increase his sentence, promised him a sentence of 10 to 15 years, and persuaded him to accept a plea agreement. Mayard received a 25-year sentence. He acknowledged that his motion was untimely and cited the pandemic and prison conditions as reasons for the delay.

Court’s analysis

The court construed Mayard’s letter as a § 2255 motion rather than merely a request for an extension. The court explained that a filing seeking more time may be treated as a motion for relief when it includes facts supporting a legal claim. The court identified Mayard’s ineffective-assistance claim as the claim raised in the letter.

The court found that the letter did not satisfy the filing requirements for a § 2255 motion because it was unclear whether Mayard had stated all available grounds for relief, did not include all required supporting information, and was not signed under penalty of perjury. The court therefore granted Mayard 60 days from the date of the order to file an amended motion that complied with those requirements.

The court determined that the one-year filing period had expired. It calculated that Mayard’s deadline was December 14, 2021, based on the Second Circuit’s July 17, 2020 judgment and the applicable 150-day period for seeking review by the Supreme Court. The court received Mayard’s letter on March 28, 2022, and concluded that the motion was untimely even if the letter’s date, March 3, 2022, were treated as the filing date.

Equitable tolling

Equitable tolling is a limited doctrine that can pause a filing deadline when a person has pursued rights diligently but an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. The court held that Mayard’s general reference to the pandemic and prison conditions was insufficient at that stage. It directed him to provide facts showing both that he pursued his rights diligently and that pandemic-related circumstances specific to him prevented timely filing.

Disposition

The court granted Mayard 60 days’ leave to file an amended § 2255 motion. The amended motion was required to use the same docket number, be labeled an “Amended Motion,” and include the information required by the court. The court stated that the amended motion would later be reviewed for substantive sufficiency and that, if it were proper, the Government would be directed to answer. The court did not decide the merits of Mayard’s ineffective-assistance claim.

The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Mayard had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order stated that if Mayard failed to comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause, the motion would be denied.