UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BERNARD DORRIS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-01083-SRC
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent. )
Order
In January 2026, the Court ordered Dorris to file, no later than February 23, 2026, an
amended motion on the Court-provided form and to explain why the Court should not dismiss
his section 2255 motion as untimely. Doc. 7 at 4 (The Court cites to page numbers as assigned
by CM/ECF.). The Court warned Dorris that “[i]f [he] does not file an amended motion, or
adequately demonstrate the timeliness of his amended motion, by February 23, 2026, the Court
will dismiss this case with prejudice.” Id. To date, Dorris has neither filed an amended motion
nor requested more time to do so. So, for the reasons explained in the Court’s January 7 Order
the Court finds that 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) bars Dorris’s Motion. The Court therefore denies
Dorris’s Motion, doc. 1, and dismisses this case with prejudice.
The Court now considers whether to grant a certificate of appealability. For the Court to
issue a certificate of appealability in this case, Dorris must show “both that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling.” Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 118 n.3 (2009) (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)) (cleaned up).
By not complying with the Court’s January 7 Order, doc. 7, Dorris failed to show that
jurists of reason would find the timeliness of his section 2255 motion debatable. The Court
therefore will not issue a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly, the Court denies Dorris’s [1] section 2255 motion, denies as moot Dorris’s
[5] Motion to Amend Argument, dismisses this case with prejudice, and declines to issue a
certificate of appealability. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Order.
So ordered this 23rd day of July 2026.
_C
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.