Limitation and Equitable Tolling of § 2255 Habeas Petitions: Supreme Court Precedent and Actual Innocence Requirement

Introduction

This commentary examines the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Platt, No. 24-1464 (10th Cir. Apr. 1, 2025), a non-precedential order denying a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The case arises from Randy Platt’s pro se petition to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence for assaulting a federal officer. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely under the one-year limitation of § 2255(f) and declined to equitably toll the statute. On appeal, the court affirmed, clarifying that only Supreme Court decisions (not circuit rulings) can reset the AEDPA clock and that actual innocence for tolling must concern the crime of conviction itself.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit unanimously held that:

Randy Platt’s § 2255 motion, filed on October 11, 2024, was untimely because the one-year statute of limitation began on January 25, 2022 (fourteen days after his January 11, 2022 judgment) and expired on January 25, 2023.
A 10th Circuit decision (United States v. Devereaux, 91 F.4th 1361 (10th Cir. 2024)) does not qualify under § 2255(f)(3) to reset the limitations clock, as only new rights “initially recognized” by the Supreme Court trigger that window.
Equitable tolling was unavailable because Platt did not present evidence of actual innocence of his underlying crime, nor did he identify “extraordinary circumstances” beyond his control that impeded a timely filing.
The district court did not err in dismissing the petition sua sponte, nor in denying a certificate of appealability, because no reasonable jurist could debate the procedural bars.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f): Establishes a one-year limitation period for collateral attacks on federal sentences, running from the date the judgment becomes final or the date a new right is recognized by the Supreme Court.
Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021): Held that a criminal offense requiring only reckless mens rea is not a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, and therefore cannot qualify to reset AEDPA’s clock for § 2255(f)(3).
United States v. Devereaux, 91 F.4th 1361 (10th Cir. 2024): Ruled that Assault with Serious Bodily Injury under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6) is not categorically a “crime of violence.” The court here clarified that Devereaux is a circuit decision and does not reset AEDPA’s limitations period.
McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013): Recognized a limited equitable-tolling “actual innocence gateway” to overcome AEDPA time bars, but stressed its rare application when a petitioner presents new reliable evidence of factual innocence of the crime itself.
Equitable-tolling cases: Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2000); Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Gabaldon, 522 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2008).
Procedural-bar cases: Kilgore v. Att’y Gen. of Colo., 519 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 2008); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000).

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in two steps:

Statute of Limitations Under § 2255(f). By statutory text, the one-year period runs from “the date on which the judgment became final” or “the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court.” Platt’s judgment became final on January 25, 2022. His petition, filed October 11, 2024, was plainly outside that window. The court rejected any application of Devereaux under § 2255(f)(3), since § 2255(f)(3) refers only to Supreme Court decisions.
Equitable Tolling and Actual Innocence. A petitioner may overcome AEDPA’s bar under McQuiggin’s “actual innocence” gateway if he presents new, reliable evidence that he did not commit the underlying offense. Platt’s arguments challenged only his sentence calculation and waiver clause, not his factual guilt. The court emphasized that legal insufficiency of a sentencing enhancement does not equate to factual innocence of the assault conviction itself. No extraordinary circumstances justified tolling.

Impact

This decision reinforces several important principles:

Only Supreme Court rulings can reset the § 2255 limitations period under subsection (f)(3). Circuit holdings—even on significant new interpretations—have no tolling effect.
Finality in non-appealed cases occurs when the direct appeal window closes, strictly applying Rule 4(b)(1)(A)(i).
Equitable tolling for § 2255 petitions is narrowly confined to true factual innocence of the crime of conviction and truly extraordinary circumstances.
Pro se movants remain subject to AEDPA’s time bars; liberal construction does not excuse a late filing absent statutory or equitable grounds.

Complex Concepts Simplified

One-Year Limitation (§ 2255(f)): The clock starts when a conviction is final—either after direct appeals or when the time to appeal expires—and typically cannot be paused by new circuit opinions.
Finality of Judgment: If a defendant does not appeal, the judgment becomes final fourteen days after it is entered.
Equitable Tolling: A narrow exception that may pause the statute of limitations when the petitioner shows (a) diligent pursuit of relief, (b) extraordinary circumstances outside his control, and (c) sometimes, a credible claim of actual innocence.
Actual vs. Legal Innocence: Actual innocence means the petitioner did not commit the crime. Legal innocence (e.g., incorrect sentencing enhancement) does not permit tolling.
Certificate of Appealability (COA): A procedural requirement for appeals from habeas denials, issued only when jurists of reason could debate the merits or procedural correctness of the denial.

Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit’s order in United States v. Platt underscores the rigidity of AEDPA’s one-year limitation for § 2255 motions and the limited scope of equitable tolling. It clarifies that only Supreme Court decisions—not circuit court rulings—can reopen the statutory window, and that equitable relief requires proof of factual innocence of the underlying offense. Practitioners and pro se litigants should take away that (1) § 2255 deadlines are strictly enforced; (2) new circuit precedents, however persuasive, cannot reset AEDPA’s clock; and (3) true actual innocence remains a rare but essential gateway for overcoming procedural bars.