SEABROOKS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 8

OPINION. Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 6/15/16. (cm )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

EUGENE SEABROOKS,

HONORABLE WILLIAM H.

WALLS

Petitioner,
v.

No.

Civil Action
15—6972 (WHW)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
OPINION

Respondent.

APPEARANCES:
Eugene Seabrooks, Petitioner pro se
#437851—635381 B
New Jersey State Prison
P.O. Box 861
Trenton, NJ 08625
WALLS,
I.

Senior District Judge:

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on the motion by Eugene
Seabrooks’ to vacate,

set aside,

For the reasons expressed below,

or correct his federal sentence.
this Court will dismiss the

petition for lack of jurisdiction,

and no certificate of

appealability shall issue.

1

Petitioner’s last name has been spelled in previous proceedings
as “Seabrookes.” The Court will use the spelling used in the
petition for consistency.

II.

BACKGROUND

A federal grand jury indicted Petitioner and five other
defendants for conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of
cocaine base in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 841(a) (1),

846.

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in July 1998.

United States

v.

•2

Seabrookes,

No.

97—0485

(D.N.J.

Oct.

16,

sentencing court imposed a life sentence.

1998)

Ibid.

The

Petitioner

appealed to the United States court of Appeals for the Third
circuit,

and that court affirmed the conviction and sentence on

August 31,
cir. Aug.

1999.
31,

United States v.

1999)

(unpublished)

Seabrookes,
.

No.

United States,

(3d

The United States Supreme

court denied a writ of certiorari on January 10,
Seabrookes v.

98—6384

528 U.S.

1092

2000.

(2000)

Petitioner thereafter filed a timely motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2555.

Petitioner raised two grounds for relief in that motion,

“object[ing]
the jury,

to the fact that the District Court judge,

and not

determined the quantity of drugs upon which his

sentence was based

[and]

that he was denied the effective

assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment.”
Seabrookes v.

United States,

No.

01-0054,

2

slip op.

at 3-4

See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Rule 4(b) (permitting examination of “the
record of prior proceedings” in the court’s initial review)
“[A] court may take judicial notice of a prior judicial
opinion.” McTernan v. City of York, 577 F.3d 521, 525 (3d Cir.
2009)

2

(D.N.J.

Dec.

29,

2003)

.

He argued his trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to obtain telephone records that would
have allegedly shown he had not contacted two women, who
ultimately testified for the United States,
to move drugs on January 3,
L.

Linares,

29,
9,

2003,
2004.

D.N.J.,

1997.

Id.

in order to ask them

at 9. The Honorable Jose

denied the motion on the merits on December

and denied a certificate of appealability on February
The Third Circuit also denied a certificate of

appealability.

Seabrookes v.

June 27,

(unpublished)

2005)

Over two years later,

United States, No.

04-1071

(3d Cir.

Petitioner filed a motion in his

criminal case for the production of documents seeking an order
that would require the United States to turn over telephone
records from the witnesses’
Jail,

homes and the New Hanover County

where he had been incarcerated on January 3,

for Production of Documents,
97—0485

(D.N.J.

March 14,

Dec.

2008,

20,

United States v.

2007)

.

1997. Motion

Seabrookes,

No.

This Court denied that motion on

as Petitioner’s judgment of conviction was

final.
A year after that,

Petitioner filed a motion for

resentencing due to the amendment of the sentencing guidelines
and the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v.
U.S.

296

(2004)

Seabrookes,

No.

.

Motion for Resentencing,
97—0485

(D.N.J. Mar.
3

23,

Washington,

United States v.
2008)

.

The Court

542

appointed counsel to look into the matter for Petitioner,
ultimately denied the motion.

but

The Court noted that Petitioner’s

Blakely argument failed because Blakely and the subsequent
Booker3 decision were not applicable to cases on collateral
review.
2554000,

United States v.
at *1

(D.N.J.

Seabrookes, No.

June 21,

2010).

97-485,

2010 WL

The Court also found that

the motion was time-barred under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(f),

as a second or successive petition under § 2255 (li)

.

and barred

Ibid.

Petitioner’s motion for a sentence reduction under the
amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines was denied as the
amendments did not change the base offense level or the final
offense level.

Ibid. The Court did,

however,

permit appointed

counsel to investigate Petitioner’s claims of newly discovered
evidence.4 Id.

at *2.

Petitioner filed another motion for the

application of the amendments to the sentencing guidelines on
October 26,
2012.

2011,

which was denied by this Court on March 13,

Petitioner’s appeal of that motion was dismissed by the

Third Circuit for lack of jurisdiction.
States,

No.

12—2017

(3d Cir. Aug.

28,

Seabrookes v.

United

2012)

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)
Neither counsel nor Petitioner contacted the Court regarding a
claim of newly discovered evidence until the filing of this
motion. It is unknown whether the “newly discovered evidence” in
this motion is the same evidence that Petitioner discussed with
counsel in 2010.
4

On August 28,

2015,

Petitioner filed his third § 2255

motion in this Court along with a motion for the appointment of
counsel.

(Docket Entries 1 and 2)

The Court administratively

.

terminated the petition for failure to use the most current §
2255 form provided by the Clerk’s Office.

(Docket Entry 3)

Petitioner resubmitted his motion on the proper form and
certified under penalty of perjury that he has been notified of
the requirement that he include all the grounds for relief in
his motion as he may be barred from presenting additional
grounds at a later date.

(Motion,

Docket Entry 4 at 15)

The

.

Court thereafter reopened the matter for review.
Petitioner raises three grounds for relief:
knowingly witheld

Government and state courts,
evidence,
Jail,

such as the phone records from,

313 Greendale Drive,

and allowed key witnesses
(id.

at 5);

(2)

[sic]

.

.

“The
exculpatory

the New Hanover County

and 2502 Flint Drive,
.

(1)

Wilm.,

N.C.,

to testify falsely at trial”

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for

failure to obtain the phone records,

(id.

at 6),

and;

(3)

“Petitioner should be resentenced based on the new amendment to
sentencing guidelines.”

(id.

at 8).

Petitioner argues his motion

should not be barred under the one-year statute of limitations
due to the alleged withholding of exculpatory material by the
Government in spite of his repeated efforts to obtain the phone
records.

(Id.

at 13)
5

III.

SThNDARD OF REVIEW

Petitioner brings this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
as a pro se litigant. A pro se pleading is held to less
stringent standards than more formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.
Kerner,

Estelle v.

404 U.S.

Gamble,

519,

520

429 U.S.

(1972)

.

97,

106

(1976);

Haines v.

A pro se habeas petition and

any supporting submissions must be construed liberally and with
a measure of tolerance.

See Royce v.

Hahn,

151 F.3d 116,

118

Cir.

1998);

Lewis v. Attorney General,

878 F.2d 714,

721—22

Cir.

1989);

United States v.

414 F.2d 552,

555

Cir.

1969),

cert.

denied,

Brierley,

399 U.S.

912

(3d
(3d

(3d

(1970)

A federal district court must dismiss a habeas corpus
petition if it appears from the face of the petition that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief.
IV.

28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 Rule 4.

DISCUSSION

This is petitioner’s third motion pursuant to § 2255 before
the Court; his first motion pursuant to § 2255 was denied on the
merits by Judge Linares.
00054

(D.N.J.

Dec.

29,

Seabrookes v United States,

2003)

.

No.

01-

The United States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit affirmed the Court’s order and denied a
certificate of appealability for the reasons expressed by Judge
Linares.
9,

Seabrookes v.

United States,

2005)

6

No.

04—1071

(3d Cir.

June

Section 2255 requires that
[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.
28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(h). As Petitioner notes,

it has been his

position since trial that the Government was withholding the
complete January 1997 phone records.

(Motion at 13)

.

Petitioner

could have raised his Brady/Giglio5 argument prior to this
motion;

this petition is therefore a second or successive

motion.

See Benchoff v.

2005)

Colleran,

404 F.3d 812,

817

(3d Cir.

(Second or successive doctrine bars claims “that could

have been raised in an earlier habeas corpus petition”)
Before this Court may consider a second or successive
petition,

Petitioner must obtain an order from the Third Circuit

authorizing this Court to consider his motion.
2255(h);

28 U.S.C.

such an order,

See 28 U.S.C.

§

§ 2255 Rule 9. As Petitioner has not obtained

this Court must either dismiss the motion or

Gigilo v. United States, 405 U.S.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

7

150

(1972);

Brady v.

transfer it to the Third Circuit.
614 F. App’x 580,

582

Sections 2255(h)

(3d Cir.

See United States v.

Hawkins,

2015)

permits the certification of a second or

successive motion only where the claim is based on newly
discovered evidence that,

if proven, would be “sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable
factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense” or
is based on “a new rule of constitutional rule, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,

that was

previously unavailable.” Petitioner alleges that the newly
discovered phone records would demonstrate the two witnesses
testified falsely at trial.

However,

“mere impeachment evidence

is generally not sufficient to show actual innocence by clear
and convincing evidence.” Munchinski v.
335

(3d Cir.

(1992))
motion,

.

2012)

(citing Sawyer v.

Wilson,

Whitley,

505 U.S.

333,

349

As Judge Linares noted in Petitioner’s first § 2255
“Petitioner was convicted as a result of the

overwhelming evidence brought forth against him,
[witnesses’]
States,

694 F.3d 308,

No.

of which the

testimony was but one part.” Seabrookes v.
01—0054,

slip op.

at 10

(D.N.J.

Dec.

29,

United

2003).

The

Court finds that it is not in the interests of justice to
transfer the motion to the Third Circuit as it does not appear
Petitioner can satisfy the requirements of § 2255(h)

8

However,

this Court’s decision to not transfer the case does not

prevent Petitioner seeking permission from the Third Circuit on
his own.6 As the Court lacks jurisdicj0 over the motion,
Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel is dismissed
as moot.
An appeal may not be taken from a final order in a
proceeding under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a Certificate of appealability
2253 (c) (1) (B)

.

28 U.S.C.

§

The United States Supreme Court held lfl Slack v.

McDaniel that “When the district court denies a habeas petition
on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying
Constitutional claim,
Shows,

at least,

a COA Should issue when the prisoner

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.” 529 U.S.

473,

484

(2000).

This Court denies

a Certificate of appealability because jurists of reason would
not find it debatable that dismissal of the motion as Second or
successive is correct.

The Court also notes that a motion for resentencing based on
amendments to the Guidelines is not appropriately brought in a §
2255 motion. Petitioner must file a motion under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c) (2) in his criminal case in order to raise this argumen
6

9

V.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

this Court will dismiss the

petition for lack of jurisdiction,

and a certificate of

appealability shall not issue. An accompanying Order will be
entered.

Date

WIAM H,>A(ALLS
Senior U.S. District Judge

10