Deidre Clark v. United States
764 F.3d 653
6th Cir.2014Background
- Deidre Clark pleaded nolo contendere to making a false statement to a firearms dealer (18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A)) and guilty to possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun (26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)); she was sentenced to 108 months and her direct appeal was affirmed.
- Clark filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion asserting ineffective assistance of counsel and an unknowing/unvoluntary plea; a magistrate recommended denying relief and the district court adopted that recommendation and dismissed with prejudice.
- After the magistrate’s report but before the appeal period expired, Clark filed a motion to amend her § 2255 to add four new claims (two sentencing-enhancement challenges, selective prosecution, and judicial misconduct), citing severe depression as a reason she had not included them earlier; the district court denied the amendment as procedurally barred and futile.
- Clark filed an identical second motion to amend after the district court’s judgment but before the deadline to appeal had run; the district court denied it and this court granted a certificate of appealability on whether post-report amendments are barred and whether depression can be a compelling justification.
- The Sixth Circuit held it had jurisdiction to decide the denial of the second motion to amend, concluded the second motion was not a "second or successive" § 2255 petition because it was filed before Clark exhausted appellate remedies, and affirmed the district court’s denial as a proper exercise of discretion under the post-judgment/amendment framework (Rule 15/Rule 59 principles).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark’s second motion to amend was a “second or successive” § 2255 petition subject to AEDPA gatekeeping | Clark argued the amendment was timely because it was filed before her appellate remedies expired and her depression justified late filing | Government argued the post-judgment amendment was a successive collateral attack requiring circuit authorization under §§ 2244/2255(h) | Not successive: filed before Clark forfeited appellate remedy, so not subject to AEDPA successive-petition bar |
| Whether severe depression can be a "compelling reason" to permit amendment after a magistrate’s recommendation | Clark claimed depression prevented inclusion of the new claims earlier | Government contended no compelling reason shown and normal procedural rules should apply | Court recognized depression could be argued as compelling in principle but found Clark did not meet Rule 59/Reopening standards here |
| Whether the proposed additional claims (sentencing enhancements) warranted amendment | Clark challenged four-level and two-level sentencing enhancements | Government pointed out those arguments were litigated and rejected on direct appeal | Denied: sentencing-enhancement claims are futile because they were decided on direct appeal and no intervening controlling law exists |
| Whether selective-prosecution and judicial-misconduct claims entitled Clark to relief or amendment post-judgment | Clark alleged another participant was not indicted and that the judge disparaged her | Government argued these claims were untimely, unrelated to original grounds, and did not show newly discovered evidence or manifest injustice | Denied: claims do not satisfy post-judgment relief criteria (Rule 59) and do not show manifest injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (briefs on appeal and counsel withdrawal procedure) (establishing procedure for counsel to withdraw on appeal)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (Rule 60(b) motions that add new grounds for relief treated as successive habeas petitions)
- Ching v. United States, 298 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2002) (motion filed while initial § 2255 pending should be treated as amendment, not successive petition)
- Johnson v. United States, 196 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 1999) (motion to amend before final decision is not successive)
- Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (treatment of successive collateral attacks and finality for habeas purposes)
- Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (relation-back rule for amended habeas petitions under AEDPA)
- Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2010) (post-judgment amendments considered under Rule 59/Rule 15 factors)
- McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (abuse-of-the-writ framework and inexcusable neglect standards)
- Porterfield v. Bell, 258 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2001) (certificate of appealability vests jurisdiction in court of appeals)