United States v. Handy
703 F. App'x 685
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Verdale Handy was convicted in 2010 of drug trafficking, attempted murder, and firearm offenses and sentenced to life; his direct appeal was affirmed.
- Handy filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, including failure to challenge alleged false testimony at a James hearing; the district court denied relief in June 2015 and this court denied a COA.
- In December 2015 Handy filed a Rule 60(b) motion asserting the government failed to respond to his false-testimony claim; the district court denied it on the merits and this court treated it as a second or successive habeas application and denied authorization.
- Handy later moved in district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to amend his original § 2255 to add the fabricated-testimony and ineffective-assistance claims; the district court construed the motion as an unauthorized successive § 2255 petition and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed Handy’s request for a certificate of appealability (COA) and determined only the procedural question was necessary to resolve: the claims Handy sought to add had been presented previously and are barred by § 2244(b)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 15 motion is an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 petition | Handy: The motion attacks the integrity of habeas proceedings (not the conviction), so it is not successive | Government/District Ct.: The motion seeks relief from conviction/sentence and reasserts prior claims, so it is successive | Held: Motion treated as successive and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; § 2244(b)(1) bars reconsideration |
| Whether a COA should issue from procedural dismissal | Handy: Jurists could debate procedural correctness | Government: No debatable procedural error because claims were previously presented | Held: COA denied—no debatable procedural ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nelson, 465 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2006) (labels aside, relief sought determines whether pleading is a § 2255 motion)
- In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2008) (district court lacks jurisdiction to address merits of unauthorized successive § 2255)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA standard when dismissal is on procedural grounds)
- United States v. Owens, 70 F.3d 1118 (10th Cir. 1995) (explaining James hearing procedure)