United States v. Goins, 3:00-cr-00123

Background

Quincy A. Goins was convicted of possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute after a second trial and was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment.
Goins filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; the district court denied relief, refused a certificate of appealability, and revoked pauper status for appeal.
Goins did not seek pauper status in the Sixth Circuit as advised; his mother paid the $455 appellate filing fee.
Goins moved for a refund of that filing fee, arguing the PLRA filing-fee rules do not apply to § 2255 proceedings and the court erred.
He also filed a Rule 60(b) motion (raising Martinez and Lafler arguments not previously presented) seeking to reopen his § 2255 proceedings.
The court denied the refund motion as factually frivolous (finding no PLRA error or fee collection by the court) and dismissed the Rule 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction as moot and, alternatively, as an unauthorized successive § 2255 collateral attack.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Refund of appellate filing fee	Goins: PLRA fee rules don't apply to § 2255; court wrongly required fee — refund due	Court: It did not apply or collect PLRA fees; Goins could have sought appellate pauper status in Sixth Circuit; mother paid voluntarily	Denied — motion frivolous (no error by court)
Rule 60(b) relief to reopen § 2255	Goins: New Supreme Court decisions (Martinez, Lafler) justify reopening and merits hearings	Government: Petition moot due to commutation and release; alternatively Rule 60(b) attempts to raise new claims making it a successive § 2255 requiring circuit authorization	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: moot (no effective relief possible) and construed as unauthorized second/successive § 2255
Applicability of Martinez to federal § 2255	Goins: Martinez entitles him to relief for ineffective assistance in collateral proceedings	Court/Govt: Martinez addresses state procedural-defaults and does not apply to § 2255; no right to counsel in § 2255 thus no claim of ineffective assistance of collateral counsel	Court: Martinez inapplicable to § 2255; claim not a proper basis for Rule 60(b) relief
Lafler-based ineffective-assistance plea claim	Goins: Lafler shows counsel’s bad advice cost him a plea and reduced sentence; warrants reopening	Court/Govt: Lafler did not create a new retroactive rule for collateral review; claim raises a new substantive challenge and must be brought via authorized successive § 2255	Court: Claim treated as successive § 2255 and cannot be considered without Sixth Circuit authorization

Key Cases Cited

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (habeas relief requires an active case or controversy; expiration of sentence can render claim moot absent continuing collateral consequences)
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (distinguishes true Rule 60(b) defects from merits-based successive habeas claims)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (Sixth Amendment claim where bad advice leads to loss of favorable plea)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (excuses procedural default in state collateral review where post-conviction counsel was ineffective)
United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932 (2011) (petitioner must show collateral consequences to preserve habeas jurisdiction after sentence expiration)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (federal courts must resolve jurisdictional questions before proceeding on the merits)
Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013) (a concrete interest, however small, preserves a dispute from mootness)
Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949 (6th Cir. 1997) (PLRA filing-fee provisions do not apply to judgments denying § 2255 motions)
In re Liddell, 722 F.3d 737 (6th Cir. 2013) (Lafler did not create a retroactive rule of constitutional law for collateral review)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standards for issuing a certificate of appealability)