Government May Carry Its Burden to Defeat Presumption of Mailbox Rule Without Prison Logs or Other Records

Jeffries v. United States of America, No. 13-10730, from NDGa

 Per curiam opinion joined by Circuit Judge Hull, Circuit Judge Marcus, and Senior Circuit Judge Black.

Summary:  The petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition seeking to vacate his federal convictions.  The district court denied relief, and the Court of Appeals granted a certificate of appealability on two issues: (1) was the petitioner’s supplement to his motion to vacate timely filed under the mailbox rule; and (2) if it was, whether a later-filed ineffective assistance of counsel claim that the petitioner raised related back to an ineffective assistance claim raised in the supplement. 

After the filing of Plaintiff’s original motion to vacate, the government filed a response, and the district court denied the motion and dismissed the case.  The same day that the suit was dismissed, the Court receive a motion from the petitioner dated approximately two-and-one-half weeks earlier asserting that on June 1 he had filed three additional claims to his motion to vacate.  He also attached a supplemental motion, dated June 1, 2011, which contained a certificate of service stating that it had been deposited in the prison mailbox on June 1, 2011. 

The clerk’s office never received this purported June 1, 2011 filing, and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the timeliness of the supplement.  The government produced mailroom records for two of the petitioner’s mailings, and a witness who testified that she reviewed the log book for June 1, 2011, but found no entries under the petitioner’s name.

The district court found that the supplemental claims did not relate back to his original motion, so they could be considered only if the supplement was timely-filed.  The district court further stated the undisputed evidence showed that the mailing was not delivered on June 1, finding the petitioner’s testimony at the hearing incredible.

The panel found that the district court did not err in concluding that the petitioner did not timely file his supplemental motion, because the government carried its burden of showing that it was not filed on June 1.  Notably, the panel stated that prison logs or other records are not the only way the government can carry its burden. 

The district court’s denial of the petition was affirmed.