stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is a “prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)…to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition”
How later courts described this case
- stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is a “prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)…to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TERRICK ALFRED WILLIAMS, )
)
Movant, )
)
v. ) No. 4:19-cv-02010-RWS
)
UNITED STATES, )
)
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a motion filed by movant Terrick Alfred Williams that
has been construed as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255. The motion is successive, and movant has not received authorization from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Therefore, for the reasons
discussed below, the Court will summarily deny and dismiss the motion without further
proceedings.
Background
On October 10, 1996, a jury convicted movant of two counts of carjacking, two counts of
being a felon in possession of a firearm, and two counts of using a firearm during a crime of
violence. United States v. Williams, No. 4:96-cr-187-RWS-1 (E.D. Mo.). On January 8, 1997,
movant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 450 months’ imprisonment. He filed a notice of
appeal on January 17, 1997. Thereafter, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
affirmed his conviction and sentence. United States v. Williams, 136 F.3d 547, 549 (8th Cir. 1998).
Movant filed his first motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 on March 3, 2000. Williams v. United States, 4:00-cv-386-RWS (E.D. Mo.). On January
21, 2005, the Court denied movant’s amended § 2255 motion. However, the Court did issue a
certificate of appealability on Ground 1. Movant filed a notice of appeal. On June 27, 2006, the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Court’s denial of movant’s § 2255 motion. Williams
v. United States, 452 F.3d 1009, 1010 (8th Cir. 2006).
Movant filed a second § 2255 motion on January 8, 2016, seeking relief under Johnson v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Williams v. United States, No. 4:16-cv-33-RWS (E.D. Mo.).
The Court determined that movant’s motion was a second or successive motion, and that movant
had not received certification from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, on January 12,
2016, the Court denied movant’s motion. However, the Court transferred the matter to the Eighth
Circuit because movant had stated a tenable claim under Johnson. On October 13, 2016, the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied movant’s petition for authorization to file a successive § 2255
motion. Williams v. United States, No. 16-1153 (8th Cir. 2016).
Movant filed a third § 2255 motion on June 24, 2016, which also sought relief under
Johnson. Williams v. United States, No. 4:16-cv-989-RWS (E.D. Mo.). The Court denied the
motion on July 12, 2016. In so doing, the Court noted that movant’s motion was successive, and
that he had not obtained authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive
motion. On September 6, 2018, the Eighth Circuit denied movant’s petition for authorization to
file a successive habeas application. Williams v. United States, No. 18-2062 (8th Cir. 2018). The
Eighth Circuit denied another petition for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion on
December 10, 2018. Williams v. United States, No. 18-2854 (8th Cir. 2018).
Movant filed the instant motion on July 8, 2019. (Docket No. 1). In the motion, movant
seeks to have his sentences vacated pursuant to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Davis v. United
States, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019), which determined that the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutional. The Court construed movant’s motion as a motion to vacate,
set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Discussion
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District
Courts provides that a district court shall dismiss a § 2255 motion if “it plainly appears from the
motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not
entitled to relief.” Here, it plainly appears that movant is not entitled to relief because he has filed
prior § 2255 motions, making the instant motion successive.
A. Successiveness
A district court is not “required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus to
inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it
appears that the legality of such detention has been determined…on a prior application for a writ
of habeas corpus.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). Rather, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996, a federal inmate seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must first receive
certification from the court of appeals to file a second or successive motion. United States v.
Brown, 915 F.3d 1200, 1201 (8th Cir. 2019). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second
or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall
move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the
application”).
An inmate cannot evade this rule “by simply filing a successive § 2255 motion in the
district court.” Baranski v. United States, 880 F.3d 951, 955 (8th Cir. 2018). See also Boyd v. United
States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002) (stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals is a “prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)…to the filing of a second or successive
habeas petition”). Instead, it is up to the court of appeals to determine whether movant has made a
prima facie case that he has satisfied the requirements of § 2255. See Woods v. United States, 805
F.3d 1152, 1153 (8th Cir. 2015).
As noted above, movant has filed three prior motions pursuant to § 2255. The first was
denied on the merits; the second and third were both denied as successive. Therefore, the instant
motion is also successive. Movant has not sought certification from the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals to bring the motion in this Court. Absent certification, the Court lacks authority under §
2255 to grant movant’s requested relief. For this reason, movant’s § 2255 motion must be denied
and dismissed.
B. Certificate of Appealability
The Court has considered whether or not to issue a certificate of appealability. In order to
issue such a certificate, the Court must find a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right.
See Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir. 1997). “A substantial showing is a showing
that issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or
the issues deserve further proceedings.” Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997). Movant
has not made such a showing, so the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED AND DISMISSED AS SUCCESSIVE. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3). A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
Dated this 12th day of November, 2019.
i W. SEPELO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE