United States v. Simpson, 20-1363

Michael Eugene Simpson, after this court reversed 10 of 13 convictions on direct appeal (United States v. Simpson), filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging the remaining three convictions.
On August 11, 2020, the district court denied Simpson’s § 2255 motion, denied two motions to add claims, and denied a certificate of appealability (COA).
On September 22, 2020, Simpson sent a letter to the court requesting a stay and more time to file an appeal; the court construed it as a misdirected notice of appeal and filed it as of October 1, 2020.
Simpson later moved for an extension to file a notice of appeal; the district court denied that motion as moot because the appeal had already been initiated; Simpson did not pursue further postjudgment motions in district court.
Simpson sought a COA from this court claiming the clerk’s treatment of the September 22 letter violated his Fifth Amendment due-process rights by precluding Rule 59(e) or other postjudgment motions; this court granted a COA limited to the handling of that letter.
The panel affirmed denial of the § 2255 motion, holding Simpson failed to show the clerk’s action caused actual prejudice and he requested no COA on other issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether construing Simpson's Sept. 22 letter as a notice of appeal violated his due-process rights by foreclosing postjudgment motions	Simpson: the clerk’s characterization deprived him of the opportunity to file Rule 59(e) and other district-court motions first	United States: Simpson sought to appeal anyway; construing the letter did not meaningfully foreclose relief or cause prejudice	Court: No due-process violation shown because Simpson failed to demonstrate actual prejudice
Whether Simpson demonstrated prejudice from the clerk's handling sufficient to sustain a due-process claim	Simpson: prison conditions and need for research prevented timely postjudgment filings and were prejudiced by the appeal being deemed filed	United States: Simpson received additional time for COA and briefing; notice of appeal need not be elaborate; no showing he would have filed a meritorious postjudgment motion	Court: Prejudice not established; liberal pro se construction does not permit creating arguments or facts absent from Simpson’s brief

United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) (prejudice is generally necessary for a due-process claim)
United States v. Thompson, 518 F.3d 832 (10th Cir. 2008) (must show actual and substantial prejudice from government intrusion)
Miller v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 989 F.2d 420 (10th Cir. 1993) (lack of prompt notice requires showing of prejudice)
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (courts liberally construe pro se filings but will not craft arguments for litigants)
United States v. Simpson, 845 F.3d 1039 (10th Cir. 2017) (direct-appeal decision reversing most convictions)