United States v. Johnnie Moore
693 F. App'x 237
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellant Johnnie Ray Moore appealed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and a magistrate judge’s postjudgment denial of his request for transcript and other documents at government expense.
- Moore also filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to provide those materials at government expense.
- The district court accepted a magistrate judge’s recommendation denying § 2255 relief on the merits.
- The magistrate judge denied Moore’s postjudgment request for documents and a transcript at government expense.
- The court independently reviewed the record and addressed: (1) whether a certificate of appealability (COA) should issue for the § 2255 denial, (2) whether the magistrate’s postjudgment order was appealable, and (3) whether mandamus relief was warranted to compel production of materials at government expense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a COA should issue for denial of § 2255 relief | Moore contends his constitutional claims warrant review | Government argues Moore failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation | Denied COA; Moore did not meet the Slack/Miller-El standard |
| Whether the magistrate judge’s postjudgment order is immediately appealable | Moore treats the magistrate’s order as appealable final order | Government argues magistrate lacked jurisdiction to enter a final, appealable postjudgment order | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; magistrate order not appealable |
| Whether mandamus should compel production of transcript/documents at government expense | Moore seeks extraordinary relief to obtain records and plea transcript at government expense | Government contends mandamus is inappropriate because Moore showed no clear right or need | Mandamus denied; Moore failed to show entitlement or extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether reconsideration or oral argument warranted | Moore requested reconsideration and oral argument | Government opposed, noting record and law are clear | Motions for reconsideration denied; oral argument dispensed with |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (clarifies COA substantial showing test)
- Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394 (1976) (mandamus is drastic, for extraordinary circumstances)
- United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509 (4th Cir. 2003) (mandamus availability and standards)
- In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135 (4th Cir. 1988) (mandamus requires clear right to relief)
- Donaldson v. Ducote, 373 F.3d 622 (5th Cir. 2004) (magistrate orders typically not final appealable orders)
- Estate of Conners v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656 (9th Cir. 1993) (limits on magistrate jurisdiction for final postjudgment orders)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (standards for interlocutory and collateral order appeals)