ALLEN R. WALKER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Articles

All Content

ALLEN R. WALKER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Apr 11, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Zachary Tyree, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Andrew C. Noll, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Zachary Tyree, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Andrew C. Noll, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., Robert E. McGuire, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Judge(s): United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville

Court Appealed: MOORE, MURPHY, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. Allen Walker filed a motion seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The government opposed his motion but did not raise the statute of limitations as a defense. The district court, however, denied the motion as untimely. Walker appealed, and we remanded so the district court could determine whether the government’s failure to raise the statute of limitations defense amounted to forfeiture or waiver. We cautioned that the district court could not resurrect a waived limitations defense but could potentially consider a forfeited one. On remand, the district court decided that the government forfeited the defense, considered it despite the forfeiture, and again denied Walker’s motion as time-barred. Walker now appeals that forfeiture determination, arguing that because the government waived the statute of limitations defense, the district court should not have considered it. We agree. We reverse and remand so the district court can proceed to the merits of Walker’s § 2255 motion.

Attachments: