In Re: Cecil Bradford
660 F.3d 226
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Bradford, proceeding pro se, appeals a district court transfer of his § 2255 motion to this Court.
- Bradford previously pleaded guilty to cocaine distribution and felony firearm possession, receiving a career offender enhancement and sentences of 170 and 120 months respectively.
- He did not appeal his conviction or sentence, but later moved to vacate under § 2255, which the district court denied.
- Bradford filed successive § 2255 challenges in this Court, including a claim under Chambers v. United States, and two § 2241 petitions consolidated as § 2255 motion.
- The district court transferred the case to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, and Bradford sought a COA or authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
- We have jurisdiction to review the transfer order as an appeal from a collateral order and affirm the district court’s transfer while denying authorization for a successive motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the transfer order is an appealable collateral order | Bradford argues transfer was improper collateral order | The court has jurisdiction to review the transfer under Henderson Brinar framework | Yes; this is an appealable collateral order and we have jurisdiction |
| Whether Bradford's § 2241 petitions were properly treated as a successive § 2255 motion | Bradford contends relief under Chambers framework via § 2241 | Chambers-based claims are not retroactive collateral rules; Reyes-Requena controls | Yes; district court properly treated as a successive § 2255 motion |
| Whether Bradford is entitled to authorize a second or successive § 2255 motion | Bradford seeks authorization based on new rule announced by Chambers, Begay, James | No retroactive application shown; no newly discovered evidence | No; Bradford fails to show retroactive new rule or newly discovered evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659 (5th Cir. 1987) (collateral-order jurisdiction considerations discussed)
- A-Mark Auction Galleries, Inc. v. American Numismatic Ass’n, 233 F.3d 895 (5th Cir. 2000) (collateral order doctrine framework cited)
- Brinar v. Williamson, 245 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 2001) (transfer of petition to another circuit; not controlling in present context)
- Henderson v. Haro, 282 F.3d 862 (5th Cir. 2002) (establishes jurisdiction over appeals from transfer of successive motions)
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (test for when § 2241 is available only if § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective)
- Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424 (5th Cir. 2005) (primary means of collateral attack on sentence; § 2255 adequate unless inadequate)
- In re Tatum, 233 F.3d 857 (5th Cir. 2000) (standards for when new rules may be used in successive § 2255 petitions)