Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Koons v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division

January 31, 2014

CINDY KOONS, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

For Douglas Roehrich, Interested Party: Douglas L Roehrich, LEAD ATTORNEY, Roehrich Law Office, LLC, Sioux City, IA.

For Cynthia Koons, Petitioner: Jay Elliott Denne, LEAD ATTORNEY, Munger, Reinschmidt & Denne, Sioux City, IA.

For United States of America, Respondent: Shawn Stephen Wehde, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Attorney's Office, Sioux City, IA.

OPINION

Page 906

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AS UNTIMELY AND PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON EQUITABLE TOLLING

MARK W. BENNETT, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Procedural Background

B. Factual Background

C. Arguments Of The Parties

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Standards For Summary Judgment

B. Standards For Equitable Tolling

C. Koons's Equitable Tolling Claim

1. " Extraordinary circumstances"

2. " Diligence"

3. Disposition

III. CONCLUSION

Page 907

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Procedural Background

In her October 9, 2012, pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence By A Person In Federal Custody (§ 2255 Motion) (docket no. 1), petitioner Cindy Koons asserts that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. More specifically, she claims that her trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file an appeal after sentencing, despite her request that he do so; failing to challenge the actual quantity and purity of the methamphetamine involved in the charged offenses; failing to challenge the prosecution's statements about her " position" in the alleged methamphetamine conspiracy; and being " unavailable" for periods of time, leaving her to wonder about the status of her case.

The case was previously before me on the respondent's January 1, 2013, Motion To Dismiss (docket no. 8), in which the respondent sought dismissal of Koons's § 2255 Motion as untimely pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Koons filed a Resistance (docket no. 10), on February 15, 2013, conceding that her § 2255 Motion was not filed within one year of the date of the judgment of conviction, but asserting that the statute of limitations on her § 2255 Motion should be equitably tolled, owing to the conduct of her trial counsel, which prevented her from timely filing her § 2255 Motion.[1] Upon finding that Koons had attached several exhibits to her Resistance that I ordinarily could not consider on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and that Koons had injected the issue of equitable tolling, by Order (docket no. 14), filed July 16, 2013, I reserved ruling on the respondent's Motion To Dismiss, converted Koons's Resistance into a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rules 12(d) and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and set a schedule for Koons to supplement her converted motion and for further briefing.

Koons filed her Motion For Summary Judgment Re: Equitable Tolling Issue (docket no. 15) on July 30, 2013, including a Statement Of Undisputed Facts and an Appendix. The respondent filed a Response (docket no. 18) on August 26, 2013, in which the respondent did not dispute Koons's Statement Of Undisputed Facts, but asserted a few additional facts that the respondent asserted were also undisputed and material. Koons filed her Reply (docket no. 19), in further support of her Motion For Summary Judgment, on September 10, 2013, responding to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.