ARREOLA CASTILLO v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 5

ENTRY discussing motion for 28:2255 and denying certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 4/21/2014 (dist made)(CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

JESUS ARREOLA-CASTILLO,
Petitioner,
v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:14-cv-0475-SEB-DML
No. 1:05-64-CR-B/F-07

Entry Discussing Motion for Relief Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Denying Certificate of Appealability
For the reasons explained in this Entry, the motion of Jesus Arreola-Castillo for relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must be denied and the action dismissed with prejudice. In addition,
the Court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue.
I. The § 2255 Motion
On June 14, 2006, a jury found Arreola-Castillo guilty of conspiracy to distribute one
thousand kilograms or more of marijuana. Arreola-Castillo appealed his sentence to the Seventh
Circuit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. See United States v. Arreol- Castillo, 539 F.3d 700 (7th Cir.
2008).
On November 30, 2009, Arreola-Castillo filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting a number of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Arreola-Castillo v. United States, 1:09-cv-1476-SEB-DML (S.D.Ind.). This Court denied the
§ 2255 motion on November 7, 2012. Id. His request for a certificate of appealability was denied
by this Court and by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

On March 11, 2014, Arreola-Castillo filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule
60(b)(4), arguing that the § 2255 judgment was void because the Court’s decision was incomplete.
He argues that the Court improperly recharacterized the nature of his right to confront witnesses
argument as an attack on the sentencing proceedings. As explained in the Entry of March 24, 2014,
the Rule 60(b) motion is one attacking the Court’s decision on the merits and therefore it falls
within the scope of the relief that must be sought through a motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255.
The motion is before the Court for its preliminary review pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Courts.
The disposition in Arreola-Castillo v. United States, 1:09-cv-1476-SEB-DML (S.D.Ind.
Nov. 7, 2012) was a dismissal with prejudice. That disposition was “on the merits” for the purpose
of triggering the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
When there has already been a decision on the merits in a federal habeas action, to obtain
another round of federal collateral review a petitioner requires permission from the Court of
Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). See Potts v. United States, 210 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2000). This
statute, § 2244(b)(3), “creates a ‘gatekeeping’ mechanism for the consideration of second or
successive [habeas] applications in the district court.” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996).
This statute “is an allocation of subject matter jurisdiction to the court of appeals.” Nunez v. United
States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). “A district court must dismiss a second or successive
petition, without awaiting any response from the government, unless the court of appeals has given
approval for its filing.” Id.

With the prior § 2255 motion having been adjudicated on the merits, and in the absence of
authorization for the present filing from the Court of Appeals, this action must now be summarily
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
The motion to amend [dkt. 4] is denied as moot.
The clerk shall update the petitioner’s address on the docket as “P. O. Box 3900.”
This Entry and the accompanying Judgment shall also be entered on the docket in
the underlying criminal action, No. 1:05-cr-0064-SEB-KPF-7
II. Certificate of Appealability
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
§ 2254 Proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. §2253(c), the Court finds that Arreola-Castillo has failed to
show that reasonable jurists would find it “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its
procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court therefore denies a
certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

04/21/2014
Date: __________________
Distribution:

_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

All electronically registered counsel
Jesus Arreola Castillo
31810-051
Federal Correctional Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. Box 3900
Adelanto, CA 92301
NOTE TO CLERK: PROCESSING THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DOCKETING AND DISTRIBUTION.