IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
INRE: 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)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague and therefore invalid.
2) On April 18, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Welch v. United
States, -- S. Ct. --, No. 15-6418, holding that Johnson applies retroactively on collateral
review.
3) It is anticipated that, before the one-year deadline on Monday, June 27,
2016, for the filing of motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on Johnson, the Federal
Defender and others in this district will file more than 700 motions seeking relief on the
basis of Johnson. It appears that, based on motions filed thus far, that these motions will
seek, among other relief:
a) To invalidate certain sentences imposed under the Armed Career
Criminal Act;
b) To invalidate certain sentences imposed under the career offender
provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. §§ 4Bl.1, 4Bl.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"; and
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.
4) It appears that many of the motions filed to date in this Court are
"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.S. Supreme Court.
5) 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 eligible for immediate release should their claims prove meritorious, and
the parties are best positioned to identify those individuals and prioritize their motions .
6) 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
ORDERED on this ffe ~y of May, 2016, that all motions filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2255, or any other provision of law, 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
-2-
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 all persons seeking collateral relief based
on Johnson are afforded a period of up to 120 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 120 days after the filing of the movant's final memorandum of
law to file its response to the motion and memorandum. The parties may request from the
Court in individual matters a date shorter 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, based on the pendency of possibly dispositive litigation in a higher court regarding
a Johnson issue presented in a particular case or cases.
BY THE COURT:
HON. PETRESE B. TUCKER
Chief United States District Court Judge
-3-
