Steven Bernard Boyd v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11445
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Boyd, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his fourth-in-time § 2255 motion in the Southern District of Georgia.
- District court dismissed the motion as “second or successive” under AEDPA’s § 2255 and § 2244 gatekeeping.
- Boyd argues the district court erred by labeling the motion successive and that the motion is timely.
- Procedural history: 1998 indictment and conviction on five counts; § 851 enhancement based on two 1989 Georgia convictions.
- 2001 first § 2255 denied; 2003 state court vacatur of 1989 convictions; 2004 second § 2255 dismissed as successive; 2005 third § 2255 dismissed as successive; 2011 fourth § 2255 filed.
- Panel reverses dismissal as successive and remands to determine timeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in dismissing the fourth § 2255 motion as successive | Boyd | Government | No longer dispositive; remanded for timeliness determination |
| Whether Boyd’s fourth § 2255 motion is timely | Fourth motion timely under Stewart framework | Untimely under AEDPA unless vacatur creates new basis | Remanded to determine timeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d 856 (11th Cir. 2011) (vacatur-based claim not successive if new facts existed after initial motion; governs timeliness analysis under Stewart)
- Dunn v. Singletary, 168 F.3d 440 (11th Cir. 1999) (second or successive analysis; merits-based distinctions)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000) (a petition dismissed before merits is not a second or successive petition)
- Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049 (11th Cir. 2003) (habeas term of art for second/successive)
- Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (S. Ct. 2005) (state court vacatur of predicate conviction as new fact triggering § 2255(f)(4))
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (S. Ct. 2007) (habeas corpus—definition of second or successive)