Background

• Kamil Hakeem Johnson seeks authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion based on Miller v. Alabama announcing a new rule applicable retroactively under § 2255(h)(2).
• The court analyzes whether Johnson has made a prima facie showing of merit that Miller creates a retroactive, new rule for collateral review.
• The government concedes Miller is retroactive and may entitle Johnson to relief under that line of reasoning.
• The court adopts a liberal, non-merits-based standard for the prima facie showing, requiring only a sufficient showing of possible merit.
• If the district court finds the movant satisfied the prima facie standard, it must allow the filing and conduct fuller proceedings; it may dismiss if the standard is not met.
• The court grants authorization, allowing Johnson to file a successive § 2255 motion, to be explored further by the district court.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Bennett v. United States, 119 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 1997) (prima facie standard for authorization)
• Case v. Hatch, 2013 WL 1501521 (10th Cir. 2013) (authorization standard for successive § 2255 motions)
• Goldblum v. Klem, 510 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2007) (milestone on retroactivity considerations)
• In re Williams, 330 F.3d 277 (4th Cir. 2003) (procedural gateway for collateral review)
• In re Holladay, 331 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2003) (procedural standards for filing amendments)
• Bell v. United States, 296 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2002) (procedural considerations in § 2255 motions)
• Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (scope of retroactivity analysis)
• Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 1998) (retroactivity and new-rule analysis)
• Rodriguez v. Superintendent, Bay State Corr. Ctr., 139 F.3d 270 (1st Cir. 1998) (retroactivity considerations in new rules)