United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge.
John C. Curtiss, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, brings this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("§ 2255 Motion, " ECF No. 15.) The Government has moved to dismiss, inter alia, on the ground that the statute of limitations bars the § 2255 Motion. For the reasons set forth below, the § 2255 Motion will be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The present action concerns Curtiss's conviction for failure to appear for sentencing. The relevant procedural history is as follows:
In March of 1988, an Eastern District of Virginia jury convicted Curtiss of twenty-one counts, including mail fraud, false statements, false claims upon the United States, and conspiracy. At the conclusion of the trial, the Court allowed Curtiss to remain free on bond pending the sentencing hearing. Curtiss chose to abscond; in 2009, he was apprehended in the Bahamas. Upon his return to the Eastern District of Virginia, and this Court, Curtiss was sentenced on July 14, 2009, to [an active] term of 15 years [for the original twenty-one counts].
United States v. Curtiss, No. 3:87-cr-112-JAG, 2014 WL 202029, at *1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 17, 2014). Also on July 14, 2009, for the charge of failure to appear at sentencing, the Court sentenced Curtiss to a fourteen (14) month consecutive sentence. (J. 2, ECF No. 11.) Curtiss did not file a notice of appeal with respect to his conviction and sentence for failure to appear.
On October 18, 2012, Curtiss placed the present § 2255 Motion in the prison mail system for mailing to this Court. (§ 2255 Mot. 14.) The Court deems the § 2255 Motion filed as of that date. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). In his § 2255 Motion, Curtiss demands relief upon the following grounds:
Claim One Curtiss was subjected to "total deprivation of due process of law" because of improper treatment as a pretrial detainee and because he failed to receive a hearing required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. (§ 2255 Mot. 5.)
Claim Two The "Government coerced [a] guilty plea, and bargain[ed] in bad faith." (Id. at 6.)
Claim Three The Government committed "violations of constitutional law" by, inter alia, "invasive medical testing without consent." (Id. at 8.)
Claim Four Curtiss failed to receive the "effective assistance of counsel" because she, among other things, "fail[ed] to advise client of possible consequence[s] of [the] plea." (Id. at 9.)
II. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Section 101 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to establish a one-year period of limitation for the filing of a § 2255 Motion. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) now reads:
(f) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The limitation period ...