Stafford v. United States

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: May 12, 2020
• Docket: 1:20-cv-21662
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-21662-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS (16-20119-CR-MIDDLEBROOKS) MAGISTRATE JUDGE REID

STEVEN A. STAFFORD,

Movant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING RESPONSE/OBJECTION TO ORDER TO AMEND CONSTRUED AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This Cause is before the Court upon Movant’s response/objection to the Undersigned’s prior order [CV ECF No. 5] directing him to amend an improperly filed motion to vacate sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [CV ECF No. 6]. Because Movant objects to the order and not to a Report and Recommendation by the Undersigned, the Court construes the “objection” as a motion of reconsideration of the order to amend. For the reasons stated below, the motion [CV ECF No. 6] is DENIED. Movant initiated this case with a “petition” seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 containing certain deficiencies. [CV ECF No. 1]. The Court identified the deficiencies which included that his filing was not presented to the Court on the proper form and did not sign it under the penalty of perjury are required by the Rules

governing this proceeding. [CV ECF No. 5]. Moreover, because Movant attempts to raise a claim pursuant to United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), made retroactively applicable by In Re Hammoud, 931 F.3d 1032 (11th Cir. 2019), he was

advised that the factual statements and evidence must corroborate his claims. [Id.]. Review of the underlying criminal record indicates that Movant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, substantive Hobbs Act robbery, and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c). [CR ECF No. 106]. Movant’s petition only acknowledged his conviction under § 924(c) and for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery. [CV ECF No. 1]. Accordingly, the Court redirects Movant to comply with its prior order [CV

ECF No. 5] directing him submit an amended motion on the § 2255 form provided, setting forth the claims therein as required, and in compliance with the Rules as set forth in the Court’s order. The amended § 2255 motion will be the sole operative motion. Movant is

cautioned that failure to comply with the Court’s order requiring a properly amended § 2255 motion may result in dismissal of this action. See Brutus v. International Revenue Service, 393 F. App’x 682 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted) (Even so, dismissal under Rule 41(b) upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.).

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Movant’s motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 6] is DENIED.

2. Within 21 days of the date of this order, on or before June 2, 2020, Movant shall file a final, concise § 2255 motion, on the proper form, that complies with the directives of the Court’s prior order [CV ECF No. 5]. The Clerk is directed to provide Movant with the proper form.

3. Movant is cautioned that he should ensure he provides his amended motion to prison authorities for mailing with sufficient time for the document to reach this Court by the due date referenced above.

4. Movant is reminded that his factual representations must be made under penalty of perjury, as true and correct.

5. Failure to comply with this Court’s Order will result in the dismissal of this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DONE AND ORDERED at Miami, Florida this 12th day of May, 2020. s/Lisette M. Reid UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: Steven A. Stafford 13046-104 Lee-USP United States Penitentiary Inmate Mail/Parcels Post Office Box 305 Jonesville, VA 24263 PRO SE Ignacio Jesus Vazquez, Jr. United States Attorney’s Office Miami Special Prosecutions Section 99 NE 4th Street, Room 806 Miami, FL 33132 305-961-9318 Fax: 305-536-4699 Email: ignacio.vazquez@usdoj.gov