John David Wilson, Jr. v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
15-15609
| 11th Cir. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- John David Wilson, Jr., a Florida inmate, pleaded guilty to aggravated stalking in state case No. 99-18481 and received 5 years' community control, later revoked and converted to a 60-month sentence concurrent with other sentences.
- In state case No. 00-12480, Wilson was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and aggravated battery and sentenced to life imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.
- In 2007 Wilson filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging only the convictions/sentences in case No. 00-12480; that petition was denied and a COA was denied by this Court.
- In 2015 Wilson filed a pro se motion styled under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) seeking relief concerning the conviction and 60-month sentence in case No. 99-18481; the district court construed it as a § 2254 petition.
- The government and the panel agreed the 2015 petition was not a "second or successive" § 2254 petition because Wilson had not previously challenged case No. 99-18481 in federal habeas.
- The district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because Wilson was not "in custody" under the 99-18481 conviction when he filed in 2015; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly characterized Wilson’s Rule 60(b) filing as a § 2254 habeas petition | Wilson labeled the filing as Rule 60(b) and sought relief from his 99-18481 conviction | The government argued Rule 60(b) cannot provide relief from a criminal judgment and the filing should be treated as habeas | Court held Rule 60(b) inapplicable to criminal judgments; characterization as § 2254 petition was proper |
| Whether the petition is a “second or successive” habeas petition | Wilson implied it was a permissible challenge to 99-18481 | Government argued it might be successive given prior 2007 § 2254 petition | Court held petition was not second or successive because 2007 petition challenged different convictions (00-12480) |
| Whether Wilson satisfied the § 2241(c)(3) "in custody" requirement for habeas jurisdiction | Wilson argued he remained "in custody" because his life sentence for 00-12480 is related to the 99-18481 conviction | Government argued the 60-month sentence had expired and the life sentence is not sufficiently related to satisfy "in custody" | Court held Wilson was not "in custody" under the 99-18481 conviction when he filed in 2015; jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether the factual link between convictions made custody "positively and demonstrably related" | Wilson claimed his later criminal conduct (attempted murder) stemmed from fraud in obtaining the stalking plea | Government contended any connection was speculative and remote | Court held the asserted connection was too speculative and remote to meet the custody requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Zakrzewski v. McDonough, 490 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard of de novo review for jurisdictional questions)
- Gooden v. United States, 627 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 2010) (court may look behind pro se motion labels to determine proper statutory framework)
- United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir. 1998) (Rule 60(b) provides no relief from a criminal judgment)
- Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) (challenges to validity or duration of confinement fall within habeas corpus)
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989) (a petitioner must be "in custody" under the conviction being challenged at the time of filing)
- Van Zant v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 104 F.3d 325 (11th Cir. 1997) (connection between sentences must be direct enough to meet custody requirement)
- Sinclair v. Blackburn, 599 F.2d 673 (5th Cir. 1979) (discussing remoteness of relationships between convictions for custody purposes)