Anthony Antonio Cox v. United States
686 F. App'x 701
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Anthony Cox, a federal prisoner, previously filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction arguing he was mentally incompetent at trial.
- The § 2255 motion relied on a pretrial competency order that conditioned competency on continued medication.
- A magistrate judge and the district court found the trial transcript demonstrated Cox was competent; Cox’s objections were overruled and his § 2255 motion was denied.
- Cox later filed a Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from the judgment denying his § 2255 motion, arguing the district court failed to address his objection about relitigating the pretrial competency order (citing Clisby v. Jones).
- The district court treated Cox’s Rule 60(b) filing as a successive § 2255 motion and denied it; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that characterization but vacated the denial and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because Cox lacked authorization to file a successive collateral attack.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cox’s Rule 60(b) motion was a proper Rule 60(b) challenge or a successive § 2255 motion | Cox: Motion sought procedural relief under Rule 60(b); district failed to address his Clisby-based objection | Govt: Motion effectively seeks to relitigate competency merits and thus is a successive collateral attack barred without permission | Court: Motion was a successive § 2255-style attack because it sought to relitigate competency, so it was impermissible without authorization |
| Whether the district court erred by denying rather than dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction | Cox: Relief was Rule 60(b) and should be adjudicated on merits | Govt: District court lacked jurisdiction over an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion | Court: District court lacked jurisdiction and thus should have dismissed the filing rather than deny it |
Key Cases Cited
- Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1992) (addressing district court duties when considering objections in postconviction proceedings)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (treating Rule 60(b) filings that attack the merits of a habeas ruling as successive petitions)
- Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (applying Gonzalez to § 2255 motions and clarifying when Rule 60(b) is treated as successive)
- Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding district courts lack jurisdiction to consider unauthorized successive collateral attacks)