Opinion
CASE NO. 16-23589-CIV-SEITZ Case No. 04-20285-CR-SEITZ
10-17-2016
NICKY MARTINEZ, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER STAYING AND CLOSING CASE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Report of Magistrate Judge Re: Unauthorized Successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 But Recommending Administrative Stay in Light of Johnson v. United States and Beckles v. United States [DE-9]. Movant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [DE-1 & 3] challenges the constitutionality of his enhanced sentence as a career offender in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Because this is a successive § 2255 Motion, Movant sought leave from the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive petition. In its opinion, the Eleventh Circuit questioned whether Movant had actually been sentenced as a career offender and, pursuant to United States v. Matehett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015), denied Petitioner's application for leave to file a successive § 2255 petition [DE-10]. The Supreme Court, however, has recently decided to grant certiorari review of Beckles v. United States, 616 Fed. Appx. 415 (11th Cir. 2015), to decide whether Johnson applies to career offenders.
Movant previously filed a § 2255 petition on January 2, 2008 (Case No. 08-20308-CV-SEITZ), which was dismissed as untimely and on the merits on October 30, 2008. --------
While denials of successive applications are without prejudice and so Movant would not be precluded from filing a new successive application in the future, it would be subject to all statutes of limitations and tolling provisions. Thus, even if Movant is later granted leave to file a subsequent § 2255, questions may arise about whether that motion is timely. Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to hold the §2255 Motion in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decision in Beckles. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (holding that a district court "has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket."); Telephone Science Corporation v. Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC, 2015 WL 7444409 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2015) ("Where 'a federal appellate decision . . . is likely to have a substantial or controlling effect on the claims and issues,' a stay may be warranted.") (citing Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. S. Fla. Water Mfmt. Dist., 559 F.3d 1191, 1198 (11th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED THAT
(1) The Report of Magistrate Judge Re: Unauthorized Successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 But Recommending Administrative Stay in Light of Johnson v. United States and Beckles v. United States [DE-9] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED in part.
(2) THE CASE IS STAYED pending the Supreme Court's review of Beckles v. United States.
(3) The Clerk is directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case. Within 30 days of a decision in Beckles , Movant shall file notice with this Court and move to reopen the case and lift the stay.
DONE and ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 17th day of October, 2016
/s/_________
PATRICIA A. SEITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: All Counsel of Record