IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE: Motions Seeking Collateral Relief on the Basis
of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
1) On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Johnson
v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), holding that the "residual clause" in
the definition of "violent felony'' in the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), 18
U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(8)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague and therefore invalid.
2) On April 18, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Welch v.
United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016), holding that Johnson applies
retroactively on collateral review.
3) Before the one-year deadline on Monday, June 27, 2016, for filing
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on Johnson, the Federal Defender and others in
this district may file more than 35 motions seeking relief on the basis of
Johnson.
4) It appears that, based on motions filed thus far, these motions will
seek, among other relief:
a) to invalidate certain sentences imposed under ACCA;
,b) to invalidate certain sentences imposed under the career
offender provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. §§ 481.1,
481.2, and under other Guideline provisions, such as§ 2K2.1, that
employ the term "crime of violence," based on an argument that Johnson
also invalidates the "residual clause" in the Guidelines definition of
"crime of violence";
c) to invalidate certain convictions under§ 18 U.S.C. § 924(c),
based on an argument that Johnson also invalidates the "residual clause"
in the definition of "crime of violence" in that statute (i.e., 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(3)(B)); and
d) to .invalidate certain convictions under any statute that
incorporates the definition of "crime of violence" in 18 U.S.C. § 16, on the
grounds that Johnson also invalidates the "residual clause" in§ 16(b).
5) Several of the motions filed so far in this District appear to be
"placeholder" motions seeking to state a claim but without full briefing,
pending the action of higher courts further explaining the contours of Johnson
and its permitted application. Several issues related to the application of
Johnson are pending before the Third Circuit and the U.~. Supreme Court.
6) All litigants require sufficient time to address claims based on
Johnson, and to consider the impact of matters presently pending in higher
courts. In addition, there are some movants who would be eligible for
immediate release should their claims prove meritorious, and the parties are
best positioned to identify those individuals and prioritize their motions.
7) In order to orderly process and resolve this unusually large number of
contemporaneously-filed motions for collateral relief, to provide justice to those
movants whose meritorious claims would result in immediate release, and to
permit sufficient time for the parties to litigate these issues, it is hereby
-2-
,_J
ORDERED on this~ day of June, 2016, that all motions filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2255, or any other provision oflaw, seeking collateral relief based
on Johnson, whether filed before or after the issuance of this Order, are
STAYED. The parties shall promptly confer on prioritizing the motions
according to the considerations addressed in this Order, and shall move to lift
this stay in individual matters as they are prioritized and ready to proceed.
It is further ORDERED that motions or petitions raising claims based on
Johnson, filed on or before June 27, 2016, may be in the form of
"placeholders," so long as the "placeholder" alleges that the movant's or
petitioner's conviction or sentence is invalid under Johnson. Such
"placeholders," however, need not include full briefing.
It is further ORDERED that all persons seeking collateral relief based on
Johnson are afforded a period of up to 150 days from June 27, 2016 to file a
final memorandum of law supporting relief.
It is further ORDERED that the government is afforded a period of up to
150 days after the filing of the movant's final memorandum of law to file its
response to the motion and memorandum.
It is further ORDERED that the parties may request from the Court in
a-t/tiell
individual matters a date s~r than the above cited deadlines should the
interest of justice demand it.
This Order does not preclude any party from seeking further relief, either
through a supplemental Administrative Order or action in any individual case,
-3-
based on the pendency of possibly dispositive litigation in a higher court
regarding a Johnson issue presented in a particular case or cases.
Finally, nothing in this Order tolls or extends the limitations period that
otherwise would apply under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) or exempts second or
successive § 2255 motions raising Johnson claims from the certification
requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2255(h) before such motions can be
presented to the District Court under Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Section
2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.
BY THE COURT:
Hon. Leonard P. Stark
Chief Judge, District of Delaware
-4-
