Dudley v. USA
Filing
72
ORDER denying 71 Motion for Relief from Judgment under Rule 60(b) of the FRCvP. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 1/16/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(cbb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:13-CV-00161-RLV
(5:97-CR-00001-RLV-1)
SEAN LAMONT DUDLEY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on consideration of what Petitioner has labeled a
“Petition for Immediate Release from Custody of United States Marshalls [sic] and/or Bureau of
Prisons.” (Doc. No. 1). For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that the petition must be
construed as a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence, pursuant to the provisions 28
U.S.C. § 2255, and it will be dismissed as successive.
I.
BACKGROUND
On February 23, 1998, Petitioner was sentenced to 360-months’ imprisonment for
conviction on two counts charged in an indictment returned by the Grand Jury for the Western
District. In Count One, Petitioner was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846, and Count Two charged
Petitioner with aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute the cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & 18 U.S.C. § 2. (5:97-CR-00001, Doc. No. 67: Judgment in a
Criminal Case; Doc. No. 109: Presentence Investigation Report (PSR ¶ at 1)).
Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
1
Fourth Circuit. On October 29, 1998, the Court filed an unpublished decision upholding
Petitioner’s conviction and sentence. United States v. Dudley, 165 F.3d 20 (4th Cir. 1998)
(unpublished).
On September 27, 1999, Petitioner filed a Section 2255 motion to vacate which the Court
found lacked merit and it was therefore denied. (5:99-CV-00152-RLV, Doc. No. 24: Order filed
Mar. 27, 2002). Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Fourth Circuit. Dudley v. United States,
46 F. App’x 188 (4th Cir. 2002) (unpublished), cert. denied, 548 U.S. 1047 (2003).
On August 7, 2006, the Court denied Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider the
Order denying relief under § 2255, and dismissed the motion as an unauthorized, successive §
2255 motion. (Id., Doc. No. 35). On February 23, 2007, the Fourth Circuit dismissed
Petitioner’s appeal from the order of denial. United States v. Dudley, 218 F. App’x 280 (4th Cir.
2007) (unpublished). On May 28, 2008, the Fourth Court denied Petitioner’s appeal from this
Court’s order denying his motion for recusal. In Re: Sean Lamont Dudley, 279 F. App’x 221
(4th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).
On January 30, 2012, Petitioner renewed his efforts to challenge his criminal judgment
by filing various motions for reconsideration of the trial court’s decision denying and dismissing
his Section 2255 motion. (5:99-CV-00152, Doc. Nos. 58-60). Through these motions,
Petitioner argued that a recent case from the Fourth Circuit—United States v. Simmons, 649
F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) — entitled him to relief from his sentence which was entered
some (14) years earlier. The Court denied relief and dismissed the § 2255 motion. Petitioner
appealed. The Fourth Circuit dismissed his appeal in a per curiam decision after noting that
Petitioner’s motion for relief in the district court, while styled as a Rule 60(b) motion, was in
2
actuality an unauthorized, successive motion under § 2255(h). United States v. Dudley, 512 F.
App’x 378 (4th Cir. 2013) (unpublished), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 359 (2013).
On September 18, 2013, Petitioner filed still another motion which he argued entitled him
to relief from judgment under the provisions of Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Petitioner contended that there was “a legal defect inherent [in] the collateral
proceeding.” (5:13-CV-00132, Doc. No. 1 at 1). Petitioner again maintained that his sentence
should be vacated based on Simmons. The Court dismissed the motion as an unauthorized,
successive § 2255 motion, and denied Petitioner’s motion to reconsider that conclusion. (Doc.
Nos. 3 and 8). Petitioner filed an appeal to the Fourth Circuit from this Court’s denial of his
motion to reconsider and that appeal is pending as of January 16, 2014. United States v. Dudley,
No. 13-7096 (4th Cir. filed Nov. 27, 2013).
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, sentencing
courts are directed to examine promptly motions to vacate, along with “any attached exhibits and
the record of prior proceedings” in order to determine whether a petitioner is entitled to any
relief. After having considered the record in this matter, the Court finds that no response is
necessary from the United States. Further, the Court finds that this matter can be resolved
without an evidentiary hearing. See Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1970).
III.
DISCUSSION
The relief Petitioner is seeking through the present petition is effectively an order
vacating his sentence and an order granting his immediate release. This is the precise relief
Petitioner has attempted to secure through his many § 2255 filings. Petitioner’s effort to secure
3
this relief through a “petition” and not specifically under the heading of a § 2255 motion must
fail. The district courts are instructed to “classify pro se pleadings from prisoners according to
their contents, without regard to their captions.” United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 203
(4th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Emmanuel, 288 F.3d 644, 647 (4th Cir. 2002)).
The Court finds that the present petition is in fact an unauthorized, successive § 2255
motion as the relief he is seeking must be pursued under the provisions of Section 2255. The
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]
second or successive motion [under Section 2255] must be certified as provided in Section 2244
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).
There is no evidence that Petitioner has obtained the necessary authorization to file the
instant petition. The Court is therefore without jurisdiction to consider the merits, if any, of the
present action. See, e.g, In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997); Winestock, 340 F.3d at
205. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Section 2255 motion will be dismissed without
prejudice.
IV.
CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s Section 2255 Motion be
DISMISSED as successive. (Doc. No. 1).
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment under
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is DENIED. (Civil Case No. 5:99-cv-152RLV, Doc. No. 71).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
Section 2255 Cases, this Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability as Petitioner has not
made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003) (stating that in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a
petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of
the constitutional claims debatable or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474, 484 (2000)
(holding that when relief is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must establish both that
the correctness of the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a
debatably valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right).
The Clerk is respectfully directed to close this civil case.
Signed: January 16, 2014
5
6
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?