United States v. Madison McRae
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12029
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- McRae was convicted in 2005 of drug offenses after testimony and cell-phone evidence; sentenced to concurrent 210-month terms and his conviction/sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- McRae filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition alleging ineffective assistance and misconduct; the district court granted summary judgment for the government and this court denied a COA on appeal.
- McRae then filed a pro se "Motion for Relief from Judgment 60(b)(1)(3)(6)", raising five errors concerning the district court’s § 2255 proceedings and factual findings.
- The district court dismissed the 60(b) motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, treating it as an unauthorized successive § 2255 petition and declined to issue a COA.
- On appeal McRae argued the motion was a mixed Rule 60(b)/§ 2255 filing and the Fourth Circuit panel considered whether a COA was required to review a district court’s categorization.
- The Fourth Circuit held the COA requirement did not bar review of a jurisdictional dismissal of a Rule 60(b) motion as successive; the panel reversed and remanded so McRae could elect to delete improper claims or have the motion treated as successive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a COA is required to appeal a district court’s dismissal of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive § 2255 petition | McRae: Harbison and Gonzalez mean § 2253(c) does not apply to jurisdictional dismissals of Rule 60(b) motions, so no COA required | Government: Reid and circuit precedent require a COA for appeals of Rule 60(b) rulings in habeas cases | Court: No COA required to review a jurisdictional dismissal of a Rule 60(b) motion as successive; reversed and remanded |
| Whether McRae’s claims are true Rule 60(b) claims or successive habeas claims | McRae: four of five claims challenge the integrity of collateral proceedings (true Rule 60(b)); one claim attacks conviction (successive) | Government: some claims untimely or lack extraordinary circumstances | Court: Motion is mixed; district court erred by dismissing whole motion without allowing McRae to elect deletion or conversion; remand required |
| Whether the district court could alternatively be affirmed on timeliness grounds or extraordinary-circumstances standard | Government: Rule 60(c)(1) one-year deadline and 60(b)(6) extraordinary-circumstances showing bar relief | McRae: Timeliness and equitable-defenses were not litigated below; should be decided by district court first | Court: Timeliness and merits are affirmative defenses and should be considered first by the district court on remand; appellate court declines to reach them |
| Proper procedure when a motion contains both Rule 60(b) and successive-habeas claims | McRae: Court should follow Winestock and permit petitioner to choose to delete or treat as successive | Government: urged affirmance on alternate grounds | Court: Follow Winestock — remand so petitioner can elect or district court can treat as successive with proper authorization |
Key Cases Cited
- Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004) (held COA required for appeals from Rule 60(b) motions in habeas cases)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (distinguished true Rule 60(b) motions from successive habeas petitions)
- Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009) (COA requirement applies to orders disposing of the merits of habeas claims; order denying enlargement of counsel authority did not require COA)
- United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2003) (when motion mixes successive-application claims and Rule 60(b) claims, district court should let movant elect deletion or conversion)
- United States v. MacDonald, 641 F.3d 596 (4th Cir. 2011) (de novo review when district court construes a motion as successive § 2255 and dismisses for lack of preauthorization)
- Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683 (4th Cir. 2004) (orders dismissing habeas petitions as unauthorized successive petitions are subject to COA requirement)
- United States v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128 (4th Cir. 2008) (caution against affirming on timeliness where petitioner had no opportunity to present equitable tolling evidence)