Aaron L. Stephen v. United States , 519 F. App'x 682 ( 2013 )

Case: 11-12555 Date Filed: 05/21/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-12555
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 2:11-cv-00006-LGW-JEG; 2:09-cr-00001-LGW-JEG-1
AARON L. STEPHEN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(May 21, 2013)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 11-12555 Date Filed: 05/21/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Appellant Aaron L. Stephen, a federal prisoner proceeding with appointed
counsel, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition as
untimely. He argues that he was prevented from timely filing his motion because
the Glenn County Detention Center’s law library did not contain a copy of § 2255
or any other federal material containing the statute of limitations for filing a § 2255
motion.
We review de novo a district court’s determination that a motion to vacate is
time-barred. Jones v. United States, 304 F.3d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 2002). “Pro
se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)
imposes a one-year statute of limitations for filing a § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(f). This limitations period runs from the latest of, among other dates:
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; [or]
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by
governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the
United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a
motion by such governmental action;
Id. § 2255(f)(1)-(2).
“Access to the courts is clearly a constitutional right, grounded in the First
Amendment, the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Fifth
2
Case: 11-12555 Date Filed: 05/21/2013 Page: 3 of 4
Amendment, and/or the Fourteenth Amendment.” Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d
1279, 1282 (11th Cir. 2003). “[T]he fundamental constitutional right of access to
the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing
of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or
adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S.
817, 828, 97 S. Ct. 1491, 1498, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1977).
However, “[t]he mere inability of a prisoner to access the law library is not,
in itself, an unconstitutional impediment.” Akins v. United States, 204 F.3d 1086,
1090 (11th Cir. 2000). Rather, “[t]he inmate must show that this inability caused
an actual harm, or in other words, unconstitutionally prevented him from
exercising that fundamental right of access to the courts in order to attack his
sentence or to challenge the conditions of his confinement.” Id. That is, a prisoner
may demonstrate actual injury by establishing that prison officials’ actions actually
deterred his pursuit of a “non-frivolous post-conviction claim or civil rights
action.” See Al-Amin v. Smith, 511 F.3d 1317, 1332-33 (11th Cir. 2008).
Here, the parties do not dispute that Stephen’s motion was not timely under
§ 2255(f)(1). However, liberally construed, Stephen’s motion asserted a claim that
the government’s failure to provide an adequate law library prevented him from
exercising his fundamental right of access to the courts. See Akins, 204 F.3d at
1090; Tannenbaum, 148 F.3d at 1263. Because the district court failed to address
3
Case: 11-12555 Date Filed: 05/21/2013 Page: 4 of 4
whether Stephen’s claim of lack of access to the courts, stemming from the
inadequacy of the prison’s law library, 1 extended the time for filing his motion
under § 2255(f)(2), we vacate the order of the district court dismissing his motion
and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED. 2
1
This Court has not addressed the issue of whether an inadequate prison library, as
opposed to the inability to access the library, qualifies as an unconstitutional impediment under §
2255(f)(2). However, the Fifth Circuit has held that a prison law library’s failure to provide a
copy of the AEDPA constitutes an unconstitutional impediment for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1)(B), the analogous provision applicable to state prisoners seeking habeas corpus relief.
Egerton v. Cockrell, 334 F.3d 433, 439 (5th Cir. 2003); see Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522,
528, 123 S. Ct. 1072, 1077, 155 L. Ed. 2d 88 (2003) (noting that the time triggers under §
2244(d)(1) “closely track corresponding portions of § 2255”). Other circuits that have addressed
the issue have suggested that an inadequate prison law library may constitute an unconstitutional
government-imposed impediment for purposes of § 2244(d)(1)(B). See Bear v. Fayram, 650
F.3d 1120, 1125 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that the availability of the statute of limitations
provision provided the assistance necessary to satisfy the constitutional requirement); Moore v.
Battaglia, 476 F.3d 504, 508 (7th Cir. 2007) (remanding to the district court to determine
whether a copy of the AEPDA statute of limitations was available in the prison library);
Whalem/Hunt v. Early, 233 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (remanding to the district
court to determine whether a copy of the AEPDA was available in the prison library).
2
All pending motions to supplement the record on appeal are DENIED.
4