United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
F. MELGREN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Joal William Goodwin has filed a “Motion for Relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petitioning to Reopen Original
§ 2255” (Doc. 50). In this motion, he asserts that
this Court should re-open and hear his original § 2255
motion. The Court dismisses Petitioner's motion because
it lacks jurisdiction.
Factual and Procedural Background
25, 2010, Petitioner was indicted on one count of bank
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). On
November 24, 2010, Petitioner pled guilty to this count.
Petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 151
months on February 10, 2011.
18, 2011, Petitioner filed a pro se motion pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 for ineffective assistance of counsel. He
argued in that motion that his trial counsel was ineffective
because allegedly his (1) counsel did not go over the
sentencing guidelines with him and his prior convictions
should not have been used to establish him as a career
offender; (2) counsel rushed through the PSR and did not tell
him enough about his criminal history; and (3) counsel
reported and showed a career offender record to the U.S.
Attorney. The Court denied Petitioner's motion finding
that Petitioner had no valid claim based on the record before
the Court and denied a certificate of appealability
then sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Tenth Circuit also denied Petitioner's request.
Petitioner only discussed one of his ineffective assistance
claims, but the Tenth Circuit found it to be without merit
and with no support in the record.
18, 2016, Petitioner filed a second Motion to Vacate pursuant
to § 2255 after receiving authorization from the Tenth
Circuit to do so. In this motion, he asserted that due to the
U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson v. United
States,  he no longer qualified as a career
offender under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
(“U.S.S.G.”) § 4B1.2, and his sentence was
unconstitutional. In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided
Beckles v. United States,  in which it held that
“the Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness
challenge under the Due Process Clause[, ] [and] [t]he
residual clause in § 4B1.2(a)(2) therefore is not void
for vagueness.” After the Beckles decision, the
Government filed an unopposed motion to dismiss
Petitioner's § 2255. The Court granted this motion
and denied Petitioner's § 2255 motion.
15, 2018, Petitioner filed his third § 2255 motion. In
this motion, he requests to re-open his original 2011 motion
on ineffective assistance of counsel. He claims that his
counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge a prior
Oklahoma conviction as an eligible predicate offense under
U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1. and 4B1.2.
attempts to file a successive § 2255 motion as he
clearly states that he seeks to re-open his previous (2011)
§ 2255 motion. His latest § 2255 motion brings up
the same argument asserted in both his first and second
§ 2255 motions. He seeks to challenge his sentence
arguing that a prior conviction should not have been used as
a predicate offense to establish him as a career offender and
his counsel was ineffective in failing to argue or recognize
prisoner must first obtain the Tenth Circuit's
authorization to file a successive § 2255
motion. When a successive § 2255 motion is
filed without authorization, “the district court may
transfer the matter to [the Tenth Circuit] if it determines
it is in the interest of justice to do so under § 1631,
or it may dismiss the motion or petition for lack of
jurisdiction.” A successive § 2255 motion is only
authorized if it contains “newly discovered
evidence” or “a new rule of constitutional law,
made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme
Court, that was previously unavailable.” In this case,
Petitioner identifies neither. “Where there is no risk
that a meritorious successive claim will be lost absent a
§ 1631 transfer, a district court does not abuse its
discretion if it concludes it is not in the interest of
justice to transfer the matter to [the Tenth Circuit] for
authorization.” Because Petitioner does not have a
potential meritorious claim, it is not in the interest of
justice to transfer the matter to the Tenth Circuit.
Accordingly, this Court must dismiss this motion for lack of
jurisdiction because it does not have authority to hear a
successive § 2255 motion.
to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B), a petitioner cannot appeal
a final order in a proceeding under § 2255 unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a COA A court may only grant a COA
“if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.”A petitioner
satisfies this burden if he can demonstrate “reasonable
jurists would find the district court's assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or
wrong.” Petitioner has not made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore,
the Court denies a COA.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's
“Motion for Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Petitioning to Reopen Original § 2255” (Doc. 50)
is hereby DENIED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to
Modify (Doc. 54) and “Motion Requesting the Court Order
Evidentiary Hearing or its Final Decision with 180 (180 day
writ) and Request to Amend ...