United States v. Jack
692 F. App'x 505
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Nathan Don Jack, a pro se federal prisoner convicted of second-degree murder, was sentenced to life imprisonment; the district court declined to add a consecutive term under 18 U.S.C. § 3147(1).
- Jack previously appealed and filed a § 2255 motion; the district court denied relief and later dismissed subsequent filings as unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motions for lack of circuit authorization.
- Jack filed a Rule 60(b) style petition in October 2016 arguing his sentence is void because § 3147 mandates a consecutive term; the district court treated it as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion and dismissed it.
- The district court also imposed filing restrictions on Jack, requiring permission before further pro se filings challenging his conviction, after finding a history of repetitive unauthorized filings.
- Jack sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to review the dismissal and appealed the imposition of filing restrictions; the Tenth Circuit denied a COA and affirmed the restrictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the October 2016 filing was a true Rule 60(b) motion or an unauthorized successive § 2255 | Jack: his sentence is void (due-process violation) because § 3147 requires a mandatory consecutive sentence; thus his filing is a Rule 60(b) challenge to the integrity of proceedings | Respondent: the filing attacks the merits of the sentence and prior habeas resolution and thus is a second or successive § 2255 requiring circuit authorization | Court: The filing challenged the merits of the sentence and prior habeas disposition, so it was a successive § 2255; COA denied and dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the district court should have transferred the filing to the circuit rather than dismissing | Jack: implicitly sought relief on merits; transfer would be appropriate | Respondent: claim lacked newly discovered evidence or new constitutional rule; transfer not in interest of justice | Court: District court acted within discretion to dismiss rather than transfer because the claim lacked merit and authorization requirements were not met |
| Whether filing restrictions were appropriate | Jack: restrictions inappropriate because his sentencing claim is meritorious | Respondent: Jack has a documented history of abusive, repetitive filings circumventing successive § 2255 rules; restrictions are narrowly tailored with instructions to seek permission | Court: Affirmed restrictions; district court did not abuse discretion and provided procedures for future filings |
| Whether Jack may proceed IFP on appeal | Jack: sought in forma pauperis | Respondent: Jack failed to present reasoned, nonfrivolous arguments | Court: Denied IFP and reminded Jack to pay filing fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (Court explains COA standards)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for COA when dismissal is on procedural grounds)
- Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213 (true Rule 60(b) motions vs. merits attacks)
- In re Pickard, 681 F.3d 1201 (distinguishing Rule 60(b) merits attacks from true procedural challenges)
- In re Lindsey, 582 F.3d 1173 (Rule 60(b) claims tied to merits require authorization)
- In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249 (district court discretion to transfer successive petitions)
- Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351 (standard of review for filing restrictions)
- Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070 (requirements for imposing filing restrictions)
- Watkins v. Leyba, 543 F.3d 624 (standard for assessing frivolousness on appeal)