In re Starks
809 F.3d 1211
11th Cir.2016Background
- Kendall Starks filed a pro se application asking the Eleventh Circuit to authorize the district court to consider a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
- Starks’s ACCA enhancement relied in part on a prior Florida conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer.
- He relied on Johnson v. United States (2015) claiming it announced a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law that could support a successive § 2255 motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2).
- The Eleventh Circuit had recently held in In re Franks that Johnson (2015) has not been made retroactive by the Supreme Court and therefore cannot support a successive § 2255 motion; that published Franks decision is binding precedent.
- Starks also invoked Johnson (2010), which interpreted ACCA’s definition of violent felony and held Florida simple battery (mere touching) is not a violent felony; the court treated that as statutory interpretation, not a new constitutional rule.
- Because Starks failed to show a Supreme Court-made-retroactive constitutional rule or newly discovered evidence, the court denied his application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson (2015) can be the basis for a second or successive §2255 motion | Starks: Johnson (2015) announced a new rule of constitutional law that is retroactive | Government: Johnson (2015) has not been made retroactive by the Supreme Court; Eleventh Circuit precedent bars reliance on it | Denied—Franks (published) controls; Johnson (2015) not retroactive for §2255(h)(2) purposes |
| Whether Johnson (2010) supports a successive §2255 motion | Starks: The 2010 Johnson decision undermines ACCA enhancement for his battery conviction | Government: Johnson (2010) was statutory interpretation, not a new constitutional rule | Denied—2010 Johnson is statutory interpretation and cannot ground a §2255(h)(2) successive motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA’s residual clause unconstitutional)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (interpreted ACCA; Florida simple battery not a violent felony)
- In re Rivero, 797 F.3d 986 (11th Cir. 2015) (Eleventh Circuit panel decision relevant to Johnson retroactivity question)
- In re Lambrix, 776 F.3d 789 (11th Cir. 2015) (published §2244(b) three-judge orders are binding precedent)
- In re Blackshire, 98 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 1996) (Supreme Court statutory-interpretation decisions do not constitute new constitutional rules for successive §2255 relief)
- Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (2005) (construction of statute of limitations timing for §2255 motions)