United States v. Mowery
680 F. App'x 659
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Mowery pleaded guilty in 2009 to possession with intent to distribute ≥500g methamphetamine and voluntarily dismissed his direct appeal.
- In 2010 he filed a §2255 motion (ineffective assistance of counsel); the district court denied relief and this court denied a COA on appeal.
- Later post-judgment motions were dismissed as unauthorized successive §2255 filings; this court previously denied COAs on those appeals.
- In 2016 Mowery filed a pro se motion styled under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, complaining of counsel’s ineffectiveness; the clerk docketed it as a §2255 motion.
- The district court concluded the substance attacked the validity of his conviction, treated it as an unauthorized successive §2255 motion, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Mowery sought a COA to appeal that dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mowery) | Defendant's Argument (District Court/Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clerk’s docketing of the filing as a §2255 motion deprived Mowery of due process/access to courts | Clerk’s characterization put him into procedural "rabbit holes," denied access and due process | Clerk’s docketing was ministerial; judge independently evaluated the filing and ruled on jurisdiction | Clerk’s action was ministerial; no deprivation of rights; not debatable |
| Whether the §3006A‑styled filing was actually a §2255 motion and thus an unauthorized successive §2255 | The filing was under §3006A and should not be treated as successive §2255 | The filing sought to attack the legality of conviction/sentence; relief sought determines classification; prior §2255 makes it successive and unauthorized | The filing was effectively a §2255 successive motion; district court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Caravalho, 177 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 1999) (§2255 is the exclusive remedy for federal prisoners attacking legality of detention)
- United States v. Nelson, 465 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2006) (relief sought, not the pleading’s title, determines whether a filing is a §2255 motion)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA standard when district court dismisses on procedural grounds)
- United States v. Harper, 545 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2008) (COA required to appeal district court dismissal of §2255-related motions)