Summary
The Ninth Circuit held that *Dean v. United States* (2017) did not announce a new rule of constitutional law retroactively applicable on collateral review, denying authorization for a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition. *Dean*'s rule—that a sentencing court may consider a § 924(c) mandatory minimum when sentencing a predicate offense—is a statutory interpretation, not a constitutional due process right. The Supreme Court has not made *Dean* retroactive, and the rule is permissive rather than substantive or a watershed procedural rule. **Topics:** Second or successive § 2255 petitions; retroactivity of new rules; *Dean v. United States*; statutory vs. constitutional rules; AEDPA gatekeeping.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Dean v. United States announced a new rule of constitutional law that the Court has made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review, satisfying the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2) for authorization to file a second or successive petition.
Holdings
- Dean's rule is statutory, not constitutional, and the Supreme Court has not made it retroactive to cases on collateral review. Therefore, Garcia's application for authorization to file a second or successive §2255 petition does not satisfy the requirements of § 2255(h)(2).
Key quotations
“We find that it did not, so we deny Fernando Garcia's application for authorization to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” (at 1243)
“Dean's rule derives from statutory interpretation, not the Constitution.” (at 1244)
“The Court's decision in Dean did not interpret—or even mention—the Constitution.” (at 1244)
“Dean's rule was statutory, not constitutional, and the Supreme Court has not made it retroactive to cases on collateral review.” (at 1246)
Factual background
Garcia pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense. In 2008, the district court sentenced him to 228 months in prison. He did not directly appeal. He filed a §2255 petition alleging involuntary plea, which was denied. He later filed another habeas petition that was denied as successive. He then applied for authorization to file a second or successive §2255 petition, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Dean v. United States.
Procedural history
Garcia pleaded guilty in 2008, sentenced to 228 months. He did not appeal, but filed a §2255 petition that was denied. He later filed another habeas petition that was denied as successive. He then applied for authorization to file a second or successive §2255 petition based on Dean v. United States.