United States v. Buenrostro
638 F.3d 720
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Buenrostro was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture more than 31 kg of methamphetamine and sentenced to life imprisonment due to two prior felony drug convictions; conviction and sentence were upheld on direct appeal.
- He filed a § 2255 motion which the district court denied on the merits.
- Afterward, Buenrostro sought to reopen under Rule 60(b) based on a new ineffective assistance claim alleging counsel failed to disclose a favorable plea offer.
- The government moved to dismiss the Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion under § 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A).
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and issued a certificate of appealability; the Ninth Circuit reviews de novo.
- The court ultimately concluded that the motion is a second or successive § 2255 motion barred by AEDPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buenrostro can reopen under Rule 60(b) as a § 2255 motion | Buenrostro argues Rule 60(b) can rehabilitate a meritorious but undiscovered claim | Government argues Rule 60(b) cannot circumvent § 2255(h) bar on second or successive petitions | Rule 60(b) motion treated as a § 2255 motion; barred under § 2255(h) |
| Whether § 2255(h) permits a second or successive motion based on a new claim not relying on a new rule or innocence | Buenrostro relies on a non-new-rule ineffective-assistance claim discovered after first proceeding | AEDPA bars second/successive motions unless new rule or innocence shown | § 2255(h) bars the second motion; exception not met; motion denied |
| Whether Panetti/Martinez-Villareal/Lopez and abuse-of-the-writ doctrine permit certification of the claim | Buenrostro relies on these to permit second-in-time review | Court should apply plain § 2255(h) text and traditional abuse principles to bar review | Court declines to certify; the claim is barred under AEDPA as second/successive |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b) cannot be used to raise new claims in habeas proceedings)
- Magwood v. Patterson, 130 S. Ct. 2788 (2010) (discusses second or successive habeas petitions and abuse-of-the-writ notions)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) (empty formality concerns on ripe claims; post-AEDPA second petition)
- Martinez-Villareal v. Stewart, 523 U.S. 637 (1998) (ripe claims; not second or successive if ripe at first petition)
- Lopez v. United States, 577 F.3d 1053 (2009) (treats § 2255(h) with abuse-of-the-writ considerations; applies to second/successive)
- Hill v. Alaska, 297 F.3d 895 (2002) (claims not ripe at conclusion of first petition may be filed later)
- Gumport v. China Int'l Trust & Inv. Corp., 926 F.2d 912 (9th Cir.1991) (fraud on the court requires an unconscionable plan; not shown here)
- Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (per curiam; discusses procedural posture of petitions)
- Abatti v. Comm'r, 859 F.2d 115 (9th Cir.1988) (fraud on the court concept in habeas context)