Derrick Antwon Traylor v. United States of America

Traylor · United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division · February 19, 2026 · No. 2:25-cv-00518-RAH

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied Derrick Antwon Traylor’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The court held that the motion was untimely because it was filed more than one year after Traylor’s conviction became final and that he had not established grounds for equitable tolling. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, denied a certificate of appealability, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Court
United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division
Decision date
February 19, 2026
Docket number
2:25-cv-00518-RAH
Procedural posture
Petitioner sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 from his federal conviction and sentence. The Government moved for dismissal on timeliness and merits grounds. The court denied the motion to vacate without an evidentiary hearing and dismissed the action with prejudice as untimely.
Standard of review
The court applied the statutory one-year limitation period for a § 2255 motion and evaluated equitable tolling under the requirements of diligence and extraordinary circumstances. It also applied the substantial-showing standard under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) for a certificate of appealability.
Precedential value
unpublished
Parties
Derrick Antwon Traylor v. United States of America
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

federal habeas corpuspost-conviction reliefsentencingappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

Federal post-conviction reliefFederal habeas corpusCriminal procedureSentencing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Traylor's § 2255 motion was filed within the applicable one-year limitation period.
  2. Whether equitable tolling applied based on Traylor's alleged difficulty obtaining legal documents, transcripts, family assistance, and counsel and his asserted diligence.
  3. Whether Traylor was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

  1. A federal prisoner who does not appeal must file a § 2255 motion within one year after the time for filing a direct appeal expires; Traylor's deadline was February 8, 2024, and his July 9, 2025 motion was untimely.
  2. Equitable tolling was unavailable because Traylor failed to show both diligent pursuit of his rights and an extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing.
  3. Traylor was not entitled to a certificate of appealability because he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Key quotations

equitable tolling is an extraordinary remedy . . . limited to rare and exceptional circumstances and typically applied sparingly.
only if he shows (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.

Factual background

Traylor was charged in a thirteen-count indictment involving trafficking controlled substances into the Alabama state prison system. He pleaded guilty to one drug-conspiracy count under an agreement that dismissed three communication-facility counts, recommended a bottom-of-the-guidelines sentence, and waived appellate and collateral attack rights. He received a 262-month sentence on January 25, 2023, did not appeal, and later filed a § 2255 motion alleging, among other things, that counsel was ineffective for permitting the waiver and that he had been rushed. He attributed the delay to difficulty obtaining documents, transcripts, family assistance, and counsel.

Procedural history

Traylor pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy charge under a written plea agreement that included an appeal and collateral-attack waiver. He was sentenced to 262 months on January 25, 2023, and did not appeal, making his conviction final when the fourteen-day appeal period expired on February 8, 2023. He filed the § 2255 motion on July 9, 2025, more than seventeen months after the one-year limitation period expired. The court rejected equitable tolling and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…