Bishop v. United States, 4:16-cv-00941

Movant DeAngelo Bishop filed a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sentence and asked the district court to hold the action in abeyance pending Eighth Circuit authorization to file a successive petition.
Bishop relied primarily on Rhines v. Weber to justify a stay while he awaited appellate authorization; the Eighth Circuit had stayed its own authorization decision pending Beckles v. United States.
The court recognized that § 2255(h)’s authorization requirement is jurisdictional and that a district court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate a successive § 2255 petition absent circuit authorization.
When a successive petition is filed without authorization, the district court may either dismiss it or, in its discretion, transfer it to the court of appeals.
Because Bishop already sought authorization from the Eighth Circuit, the district court denied the motion to stay and dismissed the § 2255 motion without prejudice, permitting refiling if and when authorization is granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court may hold a successive § 2255 motion in abeyance pending circuit authorization	Bishop: district court can stay the case (relying on Rhines)	Gov’t: court lacks jurisdiction over a successive § 2255 without § 2255(h) authorization; abeyance is improper	District court denied stay and dismissed the motion without prejudice
Proper handling of an unauthorized successive § 2255 filing	Bishop: stay while awaiting Eighth Circuit action	Gov’t: district court should dismiss or transfer; here dismissal appropriate because Bishop has sought authorization	Court dismissed without prejudice rather than transfer
Effect of pending Eighth Circuit action (stay pending Beckles) on district-court jurisdiction	Bishop: pending appellate consideration supports abeyance	Gov’t: pending appeal does not vest district court with jurisdiction	Court held jurisdiction lacking until appellate authorization granted
Whether dismissal should be with prejudice or without prejudice	Bishop: (implicitly) seeking preservation of claim	Gov’t: dismissal without prejudice until authorization	Court dismissed without prejudice allowing refiling after authorization

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (district courts may stay exhausted habeas petitions to allow state-court exhaustion in limited circumstances)
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (statutory gatekeeping for second or successive habeas petitions is jurisdictional)
Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (addressed sentencing-related questions pending in the circuits)
Woods v. United States, 805 F.3d 1152 (8th Cir. 2015) (discusses need for circuit authorization for successive § 2255 motions)
Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 2002) (district court may dismiss or transfer unauthorized successive habeas petitions)