Dixon v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior District Judge James A. Parker dismissing without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction re 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255 under Johnson v. USA) and Certificate of Appealability is Denied final judgment will be entered. (bap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JEFFREY LYNN DIXON,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The Court, sua sponte under rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings
for the United States District Courts, considers Defendant Jeffrey Lynn Dixon’s Motion To Set
Aside Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed on April 18, 2017. [CR Doc. 131; CV Doc. 1]
Defendant contends that the enhancement of his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act
(ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), is unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court’s
holdings in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct.
1257 (2016). Because Defendant’s § 2255 motion is a “second or successive” motion filed
without the requisite authorization of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, it
will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, a certificate of appealability will be
denied, and final judgment will be entered.
On March 13, 2001, Defendant was charged by Indictment with being a felon in possession
of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). [CR Doc. 12] Defendant pled
guilty to the Indictment and in July 2002, the Court entered a sealed judgment on the conviction.
[CR Docs. 65-67] Defendant did not appeal his conviction or sentence.
On June 2, 2005, Defendant filed DEFENDANT''S §2255 MOTION TO SET ASIDE
SENTENCE WITH LEGAL AUTHORITIES in light of the United States Supreme Court’s
decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). [CR Doc. 68] This Court dismissed
Defendant’s § 2255 motion with prejudice because “Defendant’s sentencing claim under . . .
Booker is barred as untimely.” [CR Docs. 70, 71] Defendant did not appeal from the dismissal
of his § 2255 motion.
On April 18, 2017, Defendant filed the present § 2255 motion, which seeks sentencing
relief under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Welch v. United States, 136 S.
Ct. 1257 (2016). Specifically, Defendant contends that the enhancement of his sentence under the
“residual clause” definition of a “violent felony” in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18
U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent
decisions in Johnson and Welch. Defendant asks the Court to “set aside his sentence, re-sentence
him without the ACCA enhancement, and impose nunc pro tunc a sentence of no more than 151
months, or less . . . .” [CR Doc. 131 at 16]
This is Defendant’s second § 2255 motion 1 and “[a] district court does not have
jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive § 2255 or 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claim until
the [United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit] has granted the required authorization.”
In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); see § 2255(h) (requiring a second
or successive § 2255 motion to be certified by the appropriate court of appeals). Defendant has
See In re Rains, 659 F.3d 1274, 1275 (10th Cir. 2011) (holding that the dismissal of a “habeas petition as time-barred
[is] a decision on the merits, and any later habeas petition challenging the same conviction is second or successive and
is subject to the AEDPA requirements”) (per curiam).
neither sought nor received permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit to file the present “second or successive” § 2255 motion and, therefore, this Court lacks
A district court may, in its discretion, transfer a “second or successive” § 2255 motion to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit “if it determines it is in the interest of
justice to do so under [28 U.S.C.] § 1631, or it may dismiss the motion or petition for lack of
jurisdiction.” In re Cline, 531 F.3d at 1252; see 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Factors considered in deciding whether a transfer is in the interest of
justice include whether the claims would be time barred if filed
anew in the proper forum, whether the claims alleged are likely to
have merit, and whether the claims were filed in good faith or if, on
the other hand, it was clear at the time of filing that the court lacked
the requisite jurisdiction.
In re Cline, 531 F.3d at 1251. “Where there is no risk that a meritorious successive claim will be
lost absent a § 1631 transfer, a district court does not abuse its discretion if it concludes it is not in
the interest of justice to transfer the matter . . . for authorization.” Id. at 1252 (citing Phillips v.
Seiter, 173 F.3d 609, 610 (7th Cir. 1999)). This is because “there is no reason to raise false hopes
and waste judicial resources by transferring a case that is clearly doomed, for example because the
statute of limitations had already run when the case was initially filed.” Philips, 173 F.3d at 610.
The Court declines to transfer this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit because Defendant’s Johnson claim is barred by the one-year limitation period in 28
U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). Section 2255(f)(3) requires that a § 2255 motion based on a right “newly
recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review”
be filed within one-year from “the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the
Supreme Court.” § 2255(f)(3). The Johnson opinion was issued on June 26, 2015, and the
limitation period expired one year later, on June 26, 2016. See Johnson, 135 S. Ct. 2551.
Defendant’s § 2255 motion was not filed, however, until April 18, 2017—approximately ten
months after the expiration of the one-year deadline. Therefore, Defendant’s § 2255 motion is
Defendant contends that his § 2255 motion is timely because it was filed within one-year of
the issuance of the Welch decision, which made the right recognized in Johnson retroactively
applicable on collateral review. [CR Doc. 131 at 15-16] This contention is foreclosed by Dodd
v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (2005), in which the United States Supreme Court addressed
“whether the date from which the limitation period begins to run under [§ 2255(f)(3)] is the date on
which this Court ‘initially recognized’ the right asserted in an applicant’s § 2255 motion, or
whether, instead, it is the date on which the right is ‘made retroactive[e].’” Id. at 354. The
Supreme Court held that the text of § 2255(f)(3) “settles this dispute” because “[i]t unequivocally
identifies one, and only one, date from which the 1-year limitation period is measured: ‘the date
on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court.’” Id. at 357. The
Supreme Court recognized “the potential for harsh results in some cases,” especially for
“applicants filing second or successive § 2255 motions,” because “an applicant who files a second
or successive motion seeking to take advantage of a new rule of constitutional law will be time
barred except in the rare case in which the [United States Supreme] Court announces a new rule of
constitutional law and makes it retroactive within one year.” Id. at 359-60. Nonetheless, the
Supreme Court held that “[i]t is for Congress . . . to amend the statute if it believes that the
interplay of [§ 2255(h) and § 2255(f)(3)] unduly restricts the federal prisoners’ ability to file
second or successive motions.” Id. In light of Dodd, the Court concludes that Defendant’s
§ 2255 motion was time-barred at the time of filing.
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings For the United States District
Courts states “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a
final order adverse to the applicant.” To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, an applicant
must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
“A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the
district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues
presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Reasonable jurists could not debate this Court’s conclusion that it lacks
jurisdiction over Defendant’s unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion, which was
time-barred by the one-year limitation period in § 2255(f)(3).
Therefore, a certificate of
appealability will be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s § 2255 motion [CR Doc. 131; CV Doc. 1] is
DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; a certificate of appealability is DENIED;
and final judgment will be entered.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
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?