Blackwell v. United States

• Decision Date: 30 January 2014
• Docket Number: No. 4:99-CV-1687 CAS,4:99-CV-1687 CAS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
• Parties: JEFFREY T. BLACKWELL, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

JEFFREY T. BLACKWELL, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

No. 4:99-CV-1687 CAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Dated: January 30, 2014

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This closed matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is before the Court on federal prisoner Jeffrey T. Blackwell's "Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4)" (Doc. 86), "Other Powers to Grant Relief from Judgment [Pursuant] to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3)" (Doc. 87), and "Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4)" (Doc. 88).

These motions are, respectively, the sixth, seventh and eighth post-dismissal motions movant has filed in this matter. Movant contends that none of these motions are barred as second or successive because they seek to correct defects in movant's original § 2255 federal habeas proceeding. Movant has also filed a motion to expedite. The government was ordered to respond to movant's motions, but it responded to only one of movant's three motions.

For the following reasons, the Court will deny movant's first Rule 60(b)(4) motion with respect to his claim under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and will dismiss the remainder of movant's first Rule 60(b)(4) motion, the second Rule 60(b)(4) motion, and the Rule 60(d)(3) motion for lack of jurisdiction, as second or successive habeas petitions for which movantfailed to obtain authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The motion to expedite will be denied as moot.

I. Procedural Background

On December 12, 1997, movant pleaded guilty to selling and distributing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A), and to being a felon in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and 924(a)(2). Movant was sentenced to 295 months imprisonment by the late Honorable George F. Gunn. United States v. Blackwell, 4:97-CR-116 GFG (E.D. Mo. Dec. 12, 1997). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. United States v. Blackwell, No. 98-1031, 163 F.3d 603, 1998 WL 703304 (8th Cir. Oct. 8, 1998) (Table) (unpublished per curiam).

Movant filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on October 28, 1999, in which he asserted five grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Movant filed a motion for leave to amend his § 2255 motion on June 21, 2001, which was granted. The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred issued a Report and Recommendation that recommended the motion be denied in all respects. Movant filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, which this Court overruled. The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation following de novo review. See Order and Judgment of Mar. 28, 2003 (Docs. 29, 30). The Eighth Circuit denied movant's application for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. Blackwell v. United States, No. 01-2226 (8th Cir. Feb. 20, 2004). The United States Supreme Court denied movant's petition for a writ of certiorari. Blackwell v. United States, No. 04-5182 (Oct. 4, 2004).

Movant subsequently filed three other motions for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Blackwell v. United States, No. 4:05-CV-984 CDP (E.D. Mo. Aug. 23, 2005); Blackwell v. United States,4:06-CV-1177 CDP (E.D. Mo. Sept. 19, 2006); and Blackwell v. United States of America, No. 4:07-CV-1864 CDP (E.D. Mo. Nov. 27, 2007), which this Court, Judge Perry presiding, construed as second or successive § 2255 motions and transferred to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The Eighth Circuit denied movant's applications for authorization to file successive habeas actions. See Blackwell v. United States, No. 05-3491 (8th Cir. Nov. 25, 2005); Blackwell v. United States, No. 06-3441 (8th Cir. Feb. 27, 2007); and Blackwell v. United States, No. 07-3765 (8th Cir. Mar. 31, 2008).

On May 13, 2008, movant filed a "Motion Under Rule 15(c)(2) Relating Back to Petitioner's Original 2255 Motion" which the Court construed as a second or successive § 2255 motion and denied. See Order of May 21, 2008 (Doc. 48). The Court also denied movant's motion for reconsideration of the Order of May 21, 2008. See Order of June 6, 2008 (Doc. 50).

On August 4, 2008, movant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., concerning Ground Three of his original § 2255 motion. The Court denied the motion by Memorandum and Order dated August 20, 2008 (Doc. 52), concluding that (1) the motion was actually a second or successive habeas petition which movant had not obtained authorization to file, Mem. and Order of Aug. 20, 2008 at 7; and (2) even if the motion was not a second or successive habeas petition, it actually sought relief under Rule 60(b)(3) and was untimely. Id. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals summarily affirmed on November 25, 2008, Blackwell v. United States, No. 08-3282 (8th Cir. Nov. 25, 2008), and denied rehearing on January 21, 2009. Id. (8th Cir. Jan. 21, 2009).

On January 22, 2009, movant filed a motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and (5), and a motion for leave to supplement it with an Addendum adding claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(d)(1) and (3) on February 26, 2009. The Court granted leave tosupplement and denied the motions by Memorandum and Order of October 14, 2009 (Doc. 73), concluding that both the motion for relief under Rules 60(b)(4) and (5), and the motion for relief under Rules 60(d)(1) and (3), were second or successive § 2255 motions for which movant did not obtain prior authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Movant filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied by Memorandum and Order of November 3, 2009 (Doc. 77). Movant appealed, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals summarily affirmed. Blackwell v. United States, No. 10-1873 (8th Cir. June 28, 2010). Movant subsequently filed the instant three motions.

II. Discussion

A. Standard for Review of 60(b) Motion in Closed Habeas Proceeding

A federal prisoner may file a second or successive motion under § 2255 only after obtaining authorization to do so from the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). The Eighth Circuit has directed that where a prisoner files a Rule 60(b) motion following the dismissal of a habeas petition, the district court should file the motion and then conduct a brief initial inquiry to determine whether the allegations in the Rule 60(b) motion in fact amount to a second or successive collateral attack under either 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or § 2254. Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002). If the district court determines the Rule 60(b) motion is actually a second or successive habeas petition, it should dismiss the motion for failure to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals or, in its discretion, transfer the purported Rule 60(b) motion to the Court of Appeals. Boyd, 304 F.3d at 814. "It is well-established that inmates may not bypass the authorization requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) for filing a second or successive . . . § 2255 action by purporting to invoke some other procedure." United States v.Lambros, 404 F.3d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citing United States v. Patton, 309 F.3d 1093 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam), and Boyd, 304 F.3d at 814).

The Supreme Court has held that a state prisoner's Rule 60(b) motion challenging the denial of federal habeas corpus relief that merely alleges a defect in the integrity of the habeas proceedings and does not attack the merits of the decision to deny the petition or present new grounds for relief from the state conviction is not a second or successive habeas petition subject to the restrictions on such petitions set forth in the AEDPA. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535-36 (2005) (Rule 60(b) motion challenging district court's previous ruling on AEDPA statute of limitations was not the equivalent of a successive habeas petition). The Eighth Circuit has explained the Gonzalez decision in detail:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a habeas petitioner to seek relief from final judgment and to request the reopening of his case in certain circumstances. Rule 60(b) applies to habeas proceedings to the extent it is not inconsistent with AEDPA. Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 529; seealso 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(4). AEDPA imposes three requirements on second or successive habeas petitions:

First, any claim that has already been adjudicated in a previous petition must be dismissed. § 2244(b)(1). Second, any claim that has not already been adjudicated must be dismissed unless it relies on either a new and retroactive rule of constitutional law or new facts showing a high probability of actual innocence. § 2244(b)(2). Third, before the district court may accept a successive petition for filing, the court of appeals must determine that it presents a claim not previously raised that is sufficient to meet § 2244(b)(2)'s new-rule or actual-innocence provisions. § 2244(b)(3).

Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 529-30. Rule 60(b) creates an exception to the finality of a district court's judgment in a habeas proceeding, so that "[i]f neither the motion itself nor the federal judgment from which it seeks relief substantively addresses federal grounds for setting aside the movant's state conviction, allowing the motion to proceed as denominated creates no inconsistency with the habeas statute or rules." Id. at 533.

A Rule 60(b) motion is a second or successive habeas corpus application if it contains a claim. For the purpose of determining whether the motion is a habeas corpus application, claim is defined as an "asserted federal basis for relief from a state court's judgment of conviction" or as an attack on the "federal court's previous resolution of the claim on the merits." Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 530, 532. "On the

...