Price v. United States
795 F.3d 731
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Price, a convicted felon, was convicted in 2006 of gun possession in violation of § 922(g)(1).
- The district court treated three prior convictions as qualifying under ACCA and sentenced Price to 250 months; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
- Price filed a 2009 § 2255 challenge arguing Begay narrowed ACCA’s residual clause; the district court denied relief and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
- Price now seeks authorization to pursue a second or successive § 2255 motion under § 2244(b)(3) and proposes a Johnson v. United States claim.
- Johnson held the ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague, creating a new substantive rule retroactive to collateral review, making Price’s claim potentially viable.
- The Seventh Circuit considers whether Johnson’s rule is retroactive and whether Price has a prima facie case for sentencing relief, with the district court to conduct further review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Johnson announce a retroactive new rule? | Price argues Johnson is retroactive under § 2244(b)(2)(A). | Government contends Johnson is not retroactive unless made retroactive by Supreme Court holdings. | Yes; Johnson is a retroactive substantive rule. |
| Does Price’s claim meet § 2255(h)(2) requirements for authorization? | Price shows a new rule and applicability to collateral review. | Government disputes the retroactivity and availability timing. | Price meets three of four requirements; authorization is warranted. |
| Has the Supreme Court made Johnson retroactive to cases on collateral review? | Retroactivity follows from Johnson’s substantive rule and Tyler’s analysis. | Retroactivity requires a Supreme Court holding; not automatic otherwise. | The Court has made Johnson retroactive under § 2244(b)(2)(A). |
| Should the district court be authorized to hear a successive collateral attack on Johnson grounds? | Price should be allowed to proceed to test Johnson claim. | Authorization should be denied absent full review. | Yes; grant authorization to the district court to consider the Johnson claim. |
| What is the scope of the district court’s review on remand? | Preliminary prima facie showing allows full review of Johnson claim. | More detailed analysis is needed, with potential dismissal under § 2244(b)(4). | District court may conduct more detailed review; may dismiss if claim fails on closer inspection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (limits ACCA residual clause interpretation)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (U.S. 2013) (new rule not previously dictated by existing precedent)
- Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (U.S. 2001) (retroactivity determination must be made by the Supreme Court)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2004) (how new rules affect final convictions; substantive vs. procedural)
- Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484 (U.S. 1990) (watershed rules of criminal procedure concept)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (retroactivity framework for new rules)