United States v. Randy Nesbitt
696 F. App'x 660
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Randy Nesbitt, a pro se appellant, sought to appeal the district court's treatment of his filings following a criminal conviction.
- The district court dismissed Nesbitt's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as second or successive and construed his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 petition, dismissing it on that basis.
- The court below denied relief on procedural/jurisdictional grounds rather than on the merits of any underlying constitutional claims.
- Nesbitt appealed and the Fourth Circuit reviewed whether a certificate of appealability (COA) was required and whether authorization to file a successive § 2255 was warranted.
- The Fourth Circuit concluded Nesbitt failed to make the required substantial showing of a constitutional violation and denied a COA and authorization to file a successive § 2255.
- The Fourth Circuit separately affirmed the district court’s characterization of the Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive habeas petition and granted in forma pauperis to proceed on that portion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether COA required and should issue for denial of successive § 2255 | Nesbitt challenged the dismissal and sought appeal | Govt argued COA required and Nesbitt failed to show substantial constitutional denial | COA denied; Nesbitt did not make requisite substantial showing |
| Whether Rule 60(b) motion was properly recharacterized as successive § 2255 | Nesbitt contended his Rule 60(b) filing should not be treated as successive habeas | Govt maintained the motion was a disguised successive § 2255 and properly dismissed | Affirmed: district court properly construed Rule 60(b) motion as successive § 2255 |
| Whether authorization to file successive § 2255 should issue under § 2255(h) | Nesbitt asserted claims warranting authorization to file a second § 2255 | Govt argued claims did not meet either newly discovered evidence or new retroactive constitutional rule standards | Denied: claims did not satisfy § 2255(h) criteria |
| Whether appealable without COA on jurisdictional categorization of Rule 60(b) | Nesbitt sought review of the court’s jurisdictional categorization | Govt argued COA not required for jurisdictional determination | Court exercised jurisdiction and reviewed that classification without COA; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (clarifies proof needed when COA denial is based on merits)
- United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2015) (COA not required to review district court’s classification of a Rule 60(b) motion as successive habeas)
- United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2003) (treatment of notices/briefs as applications to file successive § 2255)