Higgs v. USA
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 11/22/2016. (aos, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DUSTIN JOHN HIGGS,
Crim. No. PJM-98-0520
Civ. No. PJM-05-3180
Following Dustin John Higgs’s conviction for the kidnapping and murder of Tanji
Jackson, Tamika Black, and Mischann Chinn, a jury concluded that he should receive the death
penalty. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. See United States v. Higgs, 353
F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2003) cert. denied, 543 U.S. 999, 125 S. Ct. 627, 160 L.Ed.2d 456 (2004).
The Court denied Higgs’ Motion to Vacate Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see United States v.
Higgs, 711 F. Supp. 2d 479 (D. Md. 2010). Two years later, Higgs filed a Motion for Relief
pursuant to Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d). The Court denied the Motion, concluding that Higgs failed to
establish even colorable fraud on the Court. See United States v. Higgs, 2016 WL 3541387 (D.
Md. June 29, 2016). Higgs then filed his pending Motion for Certificate of Appealability.
Because jurists of reason could not find it debatable whether the Court was correct in its
procedural denial of Higgs’ Rule 60(d) Motion, his Motion for Certificate of Appealability is
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings provides that “[t]he district court
must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
applicant.” 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); see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
474 (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
Here, the parties disagree about whether the Court’s denial of Higgs’ Motion under Rule
60(d) was procedural or on the merits. Accordingly, the parties disagree on the appropriate
standard that the Court should apply in considering the Motion for Certificate of Appealability.1
For the purposes of § 2255 appeals, the distinction between procedural rulings and
rulings on the merits turns on whether the court “reach[ed] the petitioner’s underlying
constitutional claim.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. In Higgs’ Rule 60(d) Motion, Higgs asserted that
the Government denied him due process by withholding potentially exculpatory evidence. The
Court made no holding on this question. Rather, the Court held that Higgs had not made a
sufficient showing of a fraud on the Court to warrant relief under Rule 60(d). Higgs, at *1 (D.
Md. June 29, 2016) (“Because the Court agrees with the Government that Higgs has failed to
establish even a colorable fraud on the Court, his Motion is DENIED.”). Accordingly, the
Court’s decision was procedural,2 and in order for a Certificate of Appealability to be granted,
Higgs must show (1) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a
If the denial was on the merits, “[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. If, on
the other hand, the denial was procedural, the petitioner must show “that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id.
Indeed, arguably the Court had no jurisdiction to “reach the petitioner’s underlying constitutional
claim,” without first granting Higgs’ Rule 60(d) Motion because of the bar on “second or successive”
habeas petitions absent appellate permission. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b)
motion challenging outcome of habeas proceedings requires pre-filing authorization).2 Thus, the ruling on
the Rule 60(d) Motion was necessarily procedural.
valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and (2) “that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.
The Court has considered the entire record in the case and finds that Higgs has not made
the requisite showing here. Higgs falters on the second prong because he fails to demonstrate that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the Court was correct in its procedural ruling.
To prevail on his Rule 60(d) motion, Higgs would have had to prove fraud on the Court by “clear
and convincing evidence.” Higgs, at *11 (D. Md. June 29, 2016). See United States v. Antone,
742 F.3d 151, 159 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding that “clear and convincing” evidence must render a
factual determination “highly probable” and produce a “firm belief or conviction” as to the truth
of the allegations being sought to be established). But the Court concluded that Higgs failed to
demonstrate that the Government committed fraud on the Court in any sense, much less did he
offer any suggestion of clear and convincing evidence of fraud. Higgs also failed to indicate,
even colorably, that the Government engaged in an intentional plot to deceive the Court
during the § 2255 proceedings. Finally, even assuming the factual accuracy of Higgs’
allegations, he was unable to establish that the allegedly undisclosed evidence would have made
a material difference to the outcome of § 2255 proceedings. As such, no jurist could have found
that Higgs proved fraud on the Court by clear and convincing evidence.
Because Higgs cannot satisfy the second prong of the Slack test for issuing a Certificate
of Appealability for a procedural ruling, the Court need not consider whether jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
In Slack the Supreme Court recognized that the “court will not pass upon a constitutional question
although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case
may be disposed of.” Slack at 485.
The Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
A separate Order will ISSUE.
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
November 22, 2016
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?