Summary
The Tenth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability, holding that the district court correctly dismissed the defendant's third 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as an unauthorized second or successive motion over which it lacked jurisdiction. The court reaffirmed that a subsequent § 2255 motion is second or successive if the first motion was decided on the merits, and that a merits determination does not require an evidentiary hearing if the record conclusively shows the prisoner is not entitled to relief. The case addresses the standards for second or successive habeas petitions, the definition of a merits adjudication, and the COA requirement under Slack v. McDaniel.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in dismissing Rogers' third §2255 motion as an unauthorized second or successive motion.
- Whether Rogers' first §2255 motion was decided on the merits such that a subsequent motion is second or successive.
- Whether the lack of an evidentiary hearing on the first §2255 motion affects whether it was decided on the merits.
Holdings
- The district court correctly dismissed the motion because it was an unauthorized second or successive motion over which the court lacked jurisdiction.
Key quotations
“Congress has chosen to afford every federal prisoner the opportunity to launch at least one collateral attack to any aspect of his conviction or sentence.” (2)
“But if that initial collateral attack fails, 'only certain claims [that Congress] has deemed particularly important—those based on newly discovered evidence suggestive of innocence, or on retroactively applicable constitutional decisions—may be brought in a second or successive motion.'” (2)
“A hearing is not required if 'the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.'” (3)
“The Supreme Court case he relies on construed 'adjudication of the merits' to mean 'that if factual issues were raised in the prior application, and it was not denied on the basis that the files and records conclusively resolved these issues, an evidentiary hearing was held.'” (3)
Factual background
Raymond L. Rogers was convicted and sentenced in the District of Kansas. He filed multiple motions under 28 U.S.C. §2255. His first §2255 motion was denied on the merits after a thorough 25-page order. His second §2255 motion was dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive motion. He then filed a third §2255 motion, which the district court again dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized second or successive motion.
Procedural history
Rogers filed his first §2255 motion, which the district court denied on the merits after a thorough 25-page order. This court denied a COA. He then filed a Rule 60(b) motion, which was denied, and COA was again denied. He filed a second §2255 motion, which was dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive motion, and COA was denied. He then filed a third §2255 motion, which the district court again dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as unauthorized. Rogers sought a COA from this court.