US v. Damon Dickerson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. A certificate of appealability is denied. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00402-CCB-1, 1:17-cv-03512-CCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000301273]. Mailed to: Damon Gerard Dickerson. [18-6200]
Appeal: 18-6200
Doc: 10
Filed: 05/25/2018
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6200
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAMON GERARD DICKERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00402-CCB-1; 1:17-cv-03512-CCB)
Submitted: May 17, 2018
Decided: May 25, 2018
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Damon Gerard Dickerson, Appellant Pro Se. Judson T. Mihok, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 18-6200
Doc: 10
Filed: 05/25/2018
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Damon Gerard Dickerson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s prior judgment denying his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012) petition.
A
certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller–El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on
procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a
constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484–85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dickerson has not
made the requisite showing. The district court lacked jurisdiction to deny Dickerson’s
Rule 60(b) motion on the merits because the claims he raised challenged the validity of
his federal conviction, and thus the motion should have been construed as a successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531–32 (2005) (explaining
how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized second or successive
habeas corpus petition); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003)
(same). In the absence of prefiling authorization from this court, the district court lacked
2
Appeal: 18-6200
Doc: 10
Filed: 05/25/2018
Pg: 3 of 3
jurisdiction to entertain Dickerson’s successive § 2255 motion.
See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3) (2012).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?