United States v. Harry Riddick, Jr.
669 F. App'x 613
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Harry Lee Riddick, Jr., a federal inmate serving life for cocaine distribution, sought relief from a District Court order under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
- The District Court’s April 16, 2015 order dismissed a group of seven motions as frivolous; Riddick contended that it improperly included his February 12, 1996 post-verdict motion (ECF No. 453) and his July 1, 2014 “motion to adjudicate docket entry number 453” (ECF No. 1034).
- Riddick filed a Rule 36 motion (and alternatively asked the court to certify questions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)) asking the District Court to “correct the error.”
- The District Court denied Rule 36 relief on March 18, 2016; Riddick appealed that denial to the Third Circuit.
- The Third Circuit reviewed whether the District Court’s inclusion of the 1996 motion was a clerical error correctable under Rule 36, and considered several procedural motions from Riddick (for counsel, interlocutory injunctions, and to amend his notice of appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the April 16, 2015 District Court order contains a clerical error subject to correction under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 | Riddick: the order wrongly included and dismissed his 1996 post-verdict motion and related 2014 motion; court should "correct the error" | Government/District Court: inclusion was at most an oversight and not a clerical error in the judgment warranting Rule 36 relief | Held: No clerical error; Rule 36 relief unavailable; denial affirmed |
| Whether the Third Circuit should certify questions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) in the first instance | Riddick: asked appellate court to certify questions for appeal | Government: certification must originate from the district court; appellate court lacks power to certify in first instance | Held: Request dismissed; appellate court lacks authority to certify questions absent district court certification |
| Whether the appeal raises a substantial question warranting summary action | Riddick: sought expansion of prior appeal to include April 16, 2015 order | Government: prior appeal already resolved; cannot relitigate same questions | Held: Appeal presents no substantial question; summarily affirmed |
| Motions for appointed counsel and to amend notice of appeal | Riddick: requested counsel and amendment | Government: no basis shown to appoint counsel or expand appeal scope | Held: Motions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Riddick, 156 F.3d 505 (3d Cir. 1998) (prior appellate decision regarding Riddick)
- Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 1999) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record)
- United States v. Bennett, 423 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 2005) (Rule 36 limited to correction of clerical errors in judgments/orders)
- Antonioli v. Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co., 451 F.2d 1171 (3d Cir. 1971) (second appeal may not relitigate questions already decided)
- Moses v. CashCall, Inc., 781 F.3d 63 (4th Cir. 2015) (discusses limits on appellate certification under § 1292(b))
- Forsyth v. Kleindienst, 599 F.2d 1203 (3d Cir. 1979) (appellate review limits on certification and interlocutory appeals)