Jones v. USA

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 55 Motion for Plain Error Review Pursuant to Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. His request for Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

TODD RAY JONES,

Case No. 1:10-CV-00384-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

Pending before the Court is Todd Ray Jones’s Motion for Plain Error Pursuant to
Rule 52 (Dkt. 55). Having fully reviewed the record herein, the Court finds that the facts
and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record. Accordingly, in the
interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court finds that the decisional process
would not be significantly aided by oral argument, this Motion shall be decided on the
record before this Court without oral argument.
BACKGROUND
On August 2, 2012, Jones filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Jones alleged his
counsel, Mr. Monaghan, failed to object to the search warrant, and failed to request a
competency hearing during the change of plea and sentencing phase of the proceedings.
The Court denied the petition on August 29, 2013. Order, Dkt. 52. Now Jones filed this

Motion, asking the Court to vacate and set aside its “previous order of sentencing
pursuant to Rule 52(b) Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, Plain Error, to correct
Procedural and Constitutional Errors made by this Court at sentencing.” Jones Br. at 1,
Dkt. 55.
ANALYSIS
To the extent the claim raised in this Motion seeks to reopen the § 2255
proceedings as a new ground for relief, the Motion is treated as a § 2255 motion. See
United States v. Buenrostro, 638 F.3d 720, 722 (9th Cir. 2011). A “defect in the integrity
of the federal habeas proceedings,” such as “fraud on the habeas court,” might justify
reopening § 2255 proceedings. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 & n. 5 (2005).
This case, however, is not one in which Jones can or has demonstrated such a defect or
that his is the rare case in which extraordinary circumstances justify reopening the final
order denying his § 2255 motion. See Buenrostro, 638 F.3d at 722–23. There has been no
defect shown in the integrity of his first § 2255 proceeding. Id.
To the extent the Jones's Motion seeks to bring a new claim for relief, independent
from those claims adjudicated in his first § 2255 case, the Court treats this Rule 52(b)
Motion as a § 2255 Motion. Buenrostro, 638 F.3d at 723. As such, the Court must
consider whether Jones is allowed to file such a § 2255 motion. Id. Section 2255(h)
provides:
A second or successive motion must be certified ... by a panel of the
appropriate court of appeals to contain—
(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the
evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and

convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the
movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral
review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.
Here, there is no basis shown for allowing Jones to file this § 2255 petition. There
is no newly discovered evidence raised here supporting Jones’s innocence, nor any new
rule of constitutional law that is applicable. As such, the Motion is denied.
Further, the Court denies any request for a certificate of appealability. In order to
pursue any appeal from the denial or dismissal for writ of habeas corpus brought by a
federal prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a petition/appellant must first obtain a certificate
of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R.App. P. 22(b). When the denial or
dismissal of a habeas corpus petition is based upon the merits of the claims in the
petition, a district court should issue a certificate of appealability only where the appeal
presents a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
To satisfy the “substantial showing” standard, a Jones “must demonstrate that the
issues are debatable among jurists of reason[,] that a court could resolve the issues in a
different manner or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983) (setting forth the standard for
issuance of a certificate of probable cause, the predecessor to the certificate of
appealability).
There is no substantial showing that can be made in this case. Jones has made no
credible showing or any new arguments as to why this Court's ruling was incorrect and,
further, there can be made no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

See Mur
rphy v. John
nson, 110 F.3d 10, 11 (5th Cir. 19
F
(
997). Accor
rdingly, a ce
ertificate of
f
appealab
bility canno issue in th case.
ot
his
ORDER
O
IT IS ORDE
T
ERED:
1. Todd Ray Jo
T
ones’s Moti for Plain Error Pur
ion
n
rsuant to Ru 52 (Dkt. 55) is
ule
.
DENIED.
D
2. His request for Certifica of Appe
H
f
ate
ealability is DENIED.

DAT
TED: October 15, 201
14

__________
__________
_____
___
B. L
Lynn Winm
mill
Chief Judge
ited
District Cou
urt
Uni States D