IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:23-cr-00003
BILLY EGGLESTON,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Defendant’s Motion for Judicial Notice (Document 68) and
Motion to Allow Defendant’s 2255 Motion to Proceed as Timely Filed (Document 69), together
with the attached exhibits. The Defendant indicates that he mailed a motion to vacate, set aside,
or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on June 3, 2024, together with a memorandum of law
and an affidavit. He states that he placed the documents in the internal mailing system for legal
mail from FCI Bennettsville, where he was housed in the special housing unit under protective
custody. He learned that his § 2255 motion was never docketed only after requesting a docket
sheet on April 2, 2025. Mr. Eggleston states that his family failed to receive letters from him,
while he was housed in the special housing unit at FCI Bennettsville, and he believes prison
officials failed to send his mail. He argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling and his § 2255
motion should be treated as timely.
Motions pursuant to § 2255 must generally be filed within one year from the date on which
the judgment of conviction becomes final. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). Equitable tolling may apply
in “those rare instances where—due to circumstances external to the party's own conduct—it
would be unconscionable to enforce the limitation period against the party and gross injustice
would result.” Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2000). “[T]o be entitled to
equitable tolling, an otherwise time-barred petitioner must present ‘(1) extraordinary
circumstances, (2) beyond his control or external to his own conduct, (3) that prevented him from
filing on time.’” United States v. Sosa, 364 F.3d 507, 512 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Rouse v. Lee,
339 F.3d 238, 246 (4th Cir. 2003)).
The Court finds that the Defendant’s requests for equitable tolling prior to the filing of his
§ 2255 motion are premature. After the motion is filed, equitable tolling may be considered in
response to any motion to dismiss or sua sponte consideration of dismissal based on the statute of
limitations. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Defendant’s Motion for Judicial Notice
(Document 68) and Motion to Allow Defendant’s 2255 Motion to Proceed as Timely Filed
(Document 69) be DENIED as premature.
The Court further ORDERS that the Defendant’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate,
set aside or correct sentence, with exhibits (Document 69-1) be FILED as a new action pursuant
to Section 2255. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk open a new action
indicating Mr. Eggleston as the Movant, the cause as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate/Correct
Illegal Sentence, and include therein a copy of this Order and Document No. 69-1.
2
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to the Defendant and counsel,
to the United States Attorney, to the United States Probation Office, and to the Office of the United
States Marshal.
ENTER: July 1, 2025
IRENE C. □□ q
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.