Robert Randolph v. United States
904 F.3d 962
11th Cir.2018Background
- Randolph pleaded guilty in 2009 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and received a 180‑month sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on three prior violent‑felony convictions.
- He did not appeal his sentence. In 2014 he filed a pro se § 2255 motion arguing (inter alia) that Descamps undermined one predicate conviction; while that motion was pending he sought to supplement with a Johnson claim after the Supreme Court decided Johnson (2015), and the district court allowed supplementation.
- The district court denied the first § 2255 in 2016 as procedurally defaulted for failure to appeal; Randolph’s motion to reconsider citing Welch (which made Johnson retroactive) was denied, and he did not appeal that denial.
- Randolph obtained this Court’s authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion alleging Johnson error; the panel concluded he made a prima facie showing under § 2255(h)(2) but noted uncertainty whether the sentencing judge relied on the ACCA residual clause.
- The district court dismissed the second § 2255 for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning the Johnson claim had been presented and rejected in the first § 2255 and therefore was not a "new rule . . . previously unavailable" under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2).
- Randolph appealed; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the claim had been available and actually raised earlier, so the district court correctly dismissed the second petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2) to hear the second Johnson claim | Randolph: Johnson-based claim was unavailable during the first § 2255 because retroactivity was not established until Welch | Government: Claim was available when Johnson was decided and was raised in the first § 2255, so § 2255(h)(2) is not satisfied | Held: No jurisdiction — claim was available and previously presented, so § 2255(h)(2) not met |
| Whether a second § 2255 may re‑litigate a claim already raised and rejected in a prior § 2255 | Randolph: Seeks to revisit denial given Welch’s retroactivity pronouncement | Government: Second filing is repetitious and barred by principles forbidding rehashing prior habeas claims | Held: Barred — repetitious claims are dismissed under § 2244(b)(1) principles applied to § 2255 motions |
| Effect of Welch’s retroactivity holding on availability and procedural default | Randolph: Welch rendered Johnson claims retroactive and cured any prior procedural default | Government: Retroactivity does not mean the claim was previously unavailable; availability is distinct from retroactive application | Held: Welch made Johnson retroactive but did not make Johnson "previously unavailable" for § 2255(h)(2) purposes |
| Whether the district court owed deference to the appellate authorization to file a second § 2255 | Randolph: District court should defer to this Court’s authorization | Government: District court must independently determine § 2255(h) requirements | Held: No deference — district court reviews § 2255(h) issues de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (announced rule invalidating ACCA residual clause)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (constrained use of prior‑conviction records for ACCA predicate analysis)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson is retroactive on collateral review)
- In re Bradford, 830 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2016) (§ 2244(b)(1) bars repetitious § 2255 motions)
- In re Moore, 830 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2016) (district court must decide § 2255(h) issues de novo)
- Lowe v. SEC, 472 U.S. 181 (1985) (statutory interpretation principle: give effect to every word)