Boykin v. United States of America

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting (doc #4) motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge James H Hancock on 5/2/13. (ASL)

FILED
2013 May-02 AM 10:16
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONCEY FRANK BOYKIN,
Movant,

)
)

v.

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Respondent.

2:00-cr-188-JHH
2:13-cv-8012-JHH

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
The court has before it the April 8, 2013 Motion (Doc. #1) to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Doncey Frank
Boykin. Pursuant to the court’s April 9, 2013 order (Doc. #2), the United States
Government filed a Response and Motion (Doc. #4) to Dismiss on April 12, 2013.
Boykin filed a Response (Doc. # 6) to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss on April
24, 2013. The Motion (Doc. #4) to Dismiss is now under submission and due to be
granted for the following reasons.
The procedural background of Boykin’s case is extensive and spread
throughout a number of different case numbers. The court will not attempt to detail
the list of all the post-conviction motions filed and decided by this court, as well as
by the Eleventh Circuit, because it does not need to do so to rule on the pending

motion before the court. Instead, looking at the long and convoluted docket, one
thing is clear. The April 8, 2013 Motion (Doc. #1) to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct
Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not Boykin’s first § 2255 motion.1

The

law is clear that a successive motion pursuant to § 2255 may not be reviewed by this
court unless the defendant first obtains permission – a certificate of appealability –
from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file the same. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Jackson v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1290, 1294-95 (11th Cir. 2006).
It is undisputed that Boykin has not obtained the requisite permission from the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. As such, the court’s hands are tied, and it cannot
consider the present motion. Because Boykin has not satisfied this requirement, the
court is without jurisdiction to entertain his successive § 2255 motion, and the Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. # 4) is GRANTED.
A separate order will be entered dismissing this action without prejudice. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to the Movant and the United States
Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.
DONE this the

2nd

day of May, 2013.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Boykin’s first § 2255 Motion was filed on February 2, 2002. (See 2:00-cr-188-JHH at
Doc. #33 and 2:02-cv-8004-JHH at Doc. #33.)

2