Ford v. USA

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
ANTHONY RAY FORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RECONSIDER AS TIMELY MOTION
TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR
CORRECT SENTENCE
Case No. 4:25-cv-00098-DN
District Judge David Nuffer
Petitioner Anthony Ray Ford filed a Motion to Reconsider1 ("Motion") as timely his
previous Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person
in Federal Custody2 ("§ 2255 Motion").
In his § 2255 Motion, Mr. Ford argued his conviction should be vacated based on the
Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen.3 The timing,
however, presented a problem. Bruen was decided on June 23, 2022, one day after judgment was
entered against Mr. Ford in his criminal case.4 § 2255 actions face a strict one-year deadline.5
Mr. Ford's filing was effectively two years late.
On August 18, 2025, an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") was issued directing Mr. Ford to
explain why his § 2255 Motion should not be dismissed as untimely or to provide competent
1 Motion to Reconsider as Timely 2255 Motion (“Motion”), docket no. 8, filed December 8, 2025.
2 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, filed August 8, 2025.
3 § 2255 Motion at 4; New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
4 United States v. Anthony Ray Ford, 4:21-cr-00062-DN-PK-1, docket no. 60, filed June 22, 2022.
5 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
Case 4:25-cv-00098-DN Document 9 Filed 12/17/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of
4

2
evidence supporting equitable tolling of § 2255's one-year limitations period.6 Mr. Ford timely
responded on September 15, 2025, with a Memorandum to Show Cause.7
The Memorandum was largely unresponsive, “mostly making constitutional arguments to
cite out-of-circuit cases; Justice Amy Coney Barrett; and even President James Madison.”8 Mr.
Ford failed to grasp the threshold issue “those constitutional arguments cannot be reached until
Mr. Ford clears the time bar.”9 Finding no reasonable legal argument to overcome the statutory
deadline, an order issued on September 17, 2025, denying the § 2255 Motion.10 Judgment was
then entered closing this case.11
Now, Mr. Ford moves to reconsider the denial of his § 2255 Motion.12 He makes four
arguments for reconsideration: (1) district courts are instructed to hold “allegations of pro se
litigations to a less stringent standard then formal pleading drafted by attorneys”;13 (2) Mr. Ford
has been moved to six different facilities during his incarceration and “legal documents were lost
or destroyed in the process”; (3) Mr. Ford was in solitary confinement for thirteen months; and
(4) Mr. Ford has mental health issues and a learning disability and therefore relies “on other
inmates to draft all legal documents for the court.”14
6 Order To Show Cause Re: Dismissal As Untimely (“OSC”), docket no. 4, filed August 18, 2025.
7 Memorandum to Show Cause (RE: Dismissal as Untimely), docket no. 5, filed September 17, 2025.
8 Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence, docket no. 8, filed
December 8, 2025.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Judgment in a Civil Case, docket no. 7, filed December 8, 2025.
12 See generally Motion.
13 Id. at 1 (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
14 Id.
Case 4:25-cv-00098-DN Document 9 Filed 12/17/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of
4

3
“A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the
facts, a party's position, or the controlling law.”15 “It is not appropriate to revisit issues already
addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.”16 “A proper
motion to reconsider does not simply state facts previously available or make arguments
previously made.”17 “[A]rguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration are not
properly before the [district] court and generally need not be addressed.”18
All the arguments Mr. Ford raises are inappropriate on a Motion for Reconsideration.
First, while it is true that “[p]ro se litigants do enjoy a more lenient standard”19 it equally true
that “the [c]ourt cannot ignore the law.”20 The Tenth Circuit has acknowledged the many
“difficulties [ ] pro se parties face in litigating cases. But pro se litigants must prosecute their
cases and follow the court’s rules.”21 By raising this argument on a Motion for Reconsideration
after being denied for timeliness, Mr. Ford's interpretation of “leniency” for pro se litigants
amounts to asking permission to skirt the one-year time bar applied to his § 2255 Motion.22
Leniency has its limits. One of those limits is an Act of Congress. Congress afforded Mr. Ford
the ability to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Congress also imposed a one-year deadline.
The same authority that opened the courthouse door set the clock on the lock.
15 Alpenglow Botanicals, LLC v. United States, 894 F.3d 1187, 1203 (10th Cir. 2018).
16 Id. (citing Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2000)).
17 United States v. Amado, 841 F.3d 867, 871 (10th Cir. 2016).
18 United States v. Trestyn, 646 F.3d 732, 742 (10th Cir. 2011).
19 Frye v. Raemisch, 546 F. App'x 777, 785 (10th Cir. 2013).
20 Samuels v. Feiner & Trinh Int'l, LLC, 287 F.R.D. 660, 663 (D. Colo. 2012).
21 Tunson-Harrington v. Adams Cnty. Sheriff, No. 23-1103 at *2 (10th Cir. Sept. 12, 2023).
22 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
Case 4:25-cv-00098-DN Document 9 Filed 12/17/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of
4

4
Second, Mr. Ford’s remaining arguments are not new facts or newly discovered evidence.
These facts were available to Mr. Ford when he filed his § 2255 Motion23 and his
Memorandum24 yet he failed to raise them. They are circumstances Mr. Ford knew about and
could have presented at any point during the proceedings. More specifically, the OSC ordered
Mr. Ford to “identify a basis under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) for the one- year limitations period on his
§ 2255 Motion to begin running on a date that would make the August 8, 2025, filing of his
§ 2255 Motion timely” or “provide a sufficient basis (supported by competent evidence) for the
application of equitable tolling to § 2255’s one-year limitations period to render his § 2255
Motion timely.”25
The OSC gave Mr. Ford the opportunity to raise some of what he now alleges on a
Motion for Reconsideration. Instead, Mr. Ford responded to the OSC by making constitutional
arguments and chose not to mention lost legal documents, solitary confinement, or his learning
disability. He had the opportunity to present these facts but did not take it. A motion for
reconsideration cannot serve as a second chance to make arguments that should have been made
the first time.
For the reasons stated above, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Signed December 17, 2025.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge
23 See generally Motion to Reconsider as Timely 2255 Motion (“Motion”), docket no. 8, filed December 8, 2025.
24 See generally Memorandum to Show Cause (RE: Dismissal as Untimely), docket no. 5, filed September 17, 2025.
25 OSC at 4-5.
Case 4:25-cv-00098-DN Document 9 Filed 12/17/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of
4