Williams v. United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Roger T. Benitez (author)
Analysis
The court considered three documents filed by the defendant, which it determined were in substance second or successive motions to vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 disguised as Rule 60(b) and Rule 12(c) motions. The court denied the motions for lack of jurisdiction because the defendant failed to obtain the required certification from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Dkt. Nos. 193, 202, 203, and 204 for lack of jurisdiction“Therefore, Defendant’s motions to pursue a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence (i.e., Dkt. Nos. 193, 202, 203 & 204) are denied for lack of jurisdiction.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) and 28 U.S.C. § 2244. The order recites that the defendant had already filed and exhausted a first § 2255 motion (denied in 2018, appeal dismissed in 2021). The new filings (Dkt. 202, 203, 204) were characterized as Rule 60(b) and Rule 12(c) motions, but the court found them to be 'in substance, second or successive § 2255 motions.' Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a district court lacks jurisdiction to hear a second or successive § 2255 motion unless it is certified by the court of appeals. The order states that the defendant did not seek or receive such certification. Therefore, the denial for lack of jurisdiction is legally sound. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the jurisdictional defect. It correctly identifies the nature of the filings as successive § 2255 motions despite their labeling as Rule 60(b) or 12(c) motions. It cites the correct statutory provisions (§ 2255(h), § 2244) and binding Ninth Circuit precedent establishing that lack of appellate certification results in a lack of jurisdiction. The reasoning is complete for the specific issue of jurisdiction.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 11cr3529 BEN 13 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING SECOND OR 14 v. SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR 15 ROBERT LEE WILLIAMS, CORRECT A SENTENCE 16 Defendant. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 17 [Dkt. Nos. 193, 202, 203 & 204] 18 19 On September 23, 2015, Defendant filed a first motion to vacate, set aside, or 20 correct a sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion was denied on March 6, 21 2018. On March 30, 2018, while his appeal was pending, Defendant filed a motion for 22 reconsideration (Dkt. 182). After the court of appeals remanded the case for an order on 23 the motion to reconsider, this Court denied the motion to reconsider on May 31, 2019. 24 Defendant appealed the denial. On May 4, 2021, the appeal was dismissed for failure to 25 prosecute. 26 With the appeal dismissed, the Court acted on three documents that had been 27 received in past months. The documents were ordered filed on the docket on May 18, 28 2021. First, Defendant filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the final judgment in his 1 § 2255 proceeding (nunc pro tunc to July 9, 2020) (Dkt. 202). Second, Defendant filed a 2 request for judgment under Rule 12(c) as to his Rule 60(b) motion (nunc pro tunc to 3 December 24, 2020) (Dkt. 203). Third, like the older motion, Defendant filed another 4 Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the § 2255 final judgment (nunc pro tunc to March 10, 5 2021) (Dkt. 204). The two Rule 60(b) motions and the Rule 12(c) motion appear to be, in 6 substance, second or successive § 2255 motions. 7 Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) requires a second or successive motion “be certified as 8 provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals,” which in this 9 case is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The § 2255(h) gatekeeping provision is a 10 statutory enactment of what was the pre-AEDPA abuse-of-the-writ doctrine. AEDPA, as 11 in earlier times, generally limits a defendant to one motion under § 2255, and he or she 12 “may not bring a ‘second or successive motion’ unless [it] meets the exacting standards 13 of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).” United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 14 2011). “Before the district court can entertain a second or successive § 2255 motion, the 15 appropriate court of appeals must certify the motion.” Tate v. United States, 982 F.3d 16 1226, 1227 (9th Cir. 2020). If the petitioner fails to first obtain the certification from the 17 circuit court before filing a second or successive motion in the district court, “the district 18 court lacks jurisdiction to consider the second or successive application.” United States 19 v. Lopez, 577 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added). 20 “Because of the difficulty of meeting this standard, petitioners often attempt to 21 characterize their motions in a way that will avoid the strictures of § 2255(h).” 22 Washington, 653 F.3d at 1059. “For example . . . petitioners may also characterize their 23 pleading as being a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.’” 24 Id. (citation omitted). As it does not appear that Defendant has sought or received 25 authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals under § 2244 for this Court to 26 consider the new (albeit disguised) motions or new arguments for § 2255 relief, this 27 Court lacks jurisdiction. Id. at 1065 (“Accordingly, the district court was without 28 jurisdiction to entertain Washington’s successive (albeit disguised) § 2255 motion.”). 1 Therefore, Defendant’s motions to pursue a second or successive motion under 28 2 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence (i.e., Dkt. Nos. 193, 202, 203 & 3 204) are denied for lack of jurisdiction. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: September 27, 2021 __________________________________ HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28