In re Jackson
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 290
5th Cir.2015Background
- Jackson, a federal prisoner, seeks authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion attacking his conviction for assault on federal property causing serious bodily injury.
- He argues three Indiana state convictions used as sentencing predicates are not "crimes of violence" under intervening Supreme Court decisions.
- Jackson relies on Begay v. United States, Johnson v. United States, Descamps v. United States, and an Eleventh Circuit per curiam (Morris) to support retroactive relief.
- The court framed the filing standard under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2): a successive motion requires a prima facie showing that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court.
- The court reviewed whether Begay, Johnson, or Descamps announced a new constitutional rule and whether the Supreme Court made any such rule retroactive on collateral review.
- The court also noted statutory and doctrinal distinctions between relief for initial § 2255 claims, calculation of the AEDPA limitations period, and second-or-successive motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson may file a successive § 2255 based on recent Supreme Court decisions | Begay, Johnson, and Descamps show his prior state convictions are not crimes of violence, so a new retroactive rule allows a successive § 2255 | No Supreme Court has made those decisions retroactive on collateral review; § 2255(h)(2) requires a Supreme Court rule explicitly made retroactive | Denied — Jackson failed to show reliance on a new constitutional rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court |
| Whether Begay announces a retroactively applicable rule under § 2255(h)(2) | Begay limits ACCA predicates to purposeful, violent, aggressive conduct and therefore undermines predicate status | Begay was a direct-appeal decision and the Supreme Court did not declare retroactivity on collateral review | Begay does not authorize a successive § 2255; not shown retroactive by the Supreme Court |
| Whether Johnson supports a successive § 2255 | Johnson narrows "physical force" in ACCA and so negates predicate status of state convictions | Johnson did not announce a new constitutional rule made retroactive on collateral review | Johnson does not authorize a successive § 2255 |
| Whether Descamps supports a successive § 2255 | Descamps restricts the modified categorical approach, potentially removing predicate status | Descamps was decided on direct appeal and not declared retroactive by the Supreme Court | Descamps does not authorize a successive § 2255 |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (limited ACCA predicates to crimes involving purposeful, violent, aggressive conduct)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (construed "physical force" in ACCA as violent force capable of causing pain or injury)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (held courts may not apply the modified categorical approach when the statute is indivisible)
- McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991) (explained the need for finality and the high barriers to successive habeas petitions)