Summary
The Fourth Circuit held that *Davis v. United States* (invalidating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)'s residual clause) applies retroactively to cases on collateral review as a new substantive rule of constitutional law. The court granted authorization for a successive § 2255 motion, finding the movant stated a plausible claim that his VICAR assault conviction no longer qualifies as a predicate crime of violence under § 924(c)'s force clause. The opinion clarifies the prima facie standard for successive habeas authorization and the categorical analysis of VICAR predicates.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Davis v. United States announced a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court and previously unavailable.
- Whether Thomas has stated a plausible claim that his § 924(c) conviction is invalid after Davis.
Holdings
- Davis applies retroactively to cases on collateral review because it announced a new substantive rule of constitutional law.
- Thomas has stated a plausible claim for relief that warrants further exploration by the district court.
Key quotations
“a single case that expressly holds a rule to be retroactive is not a sine qua non for satisfying § 2244(b)(2)(A)'s requirement that the Supreme Court itself make the rule retroactive” (5)
“states a 'plausible claim for relief'” (9)
“may entail a cursory glance at the merits” (10)
“There comes a point where a procedural system which leaves matters perpetually open no longer reflects humane concern but merely anxiety and a desire for immobility.” (13)
Factual background
In 2011, Thomas pleaded guilty to a substantive RICO offense and a § 924(c) offense for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The predicate crime of violence was aiding and abetting VICAR assault with a dangerous weapon, which was based on two Virginia state-law offenses: Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-53.1 and 18.2-282. After the Supreme Court decided Davis v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), which held that § 924(c)'s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague, Thomas sought authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, arguing that his § 924(c) conviction was not predicated on a valid crime of violence.
Procedural history
Thomas pleaded guilty in 2011 to RICO and § 924(c) offenses. He did not appeal. After Sessions v. Dimaya, he filed a § 2255 motion, which was denied as time-barred. He then sought authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion before Davis was decided, which was denied. After Davis, he filed the instant motion for authorization.