United States v. Washington
653 F.3d 1057
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Washington was convicted in 1996 of conspiracy to manufacture PCP, possession of PCC with intent to manufacture PCP, and attempted manufacture of PCP.
- At sentencing, the district court found 108.86 grams of PCP possessed, triggering life imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1).
- This court previously affirmed the conviction in an unpublished disposition; collateral challenges followed.
- Washington filed a first § 2255 motion in 2001; Judge Byrne denied it in 2006 and this court denied a COA.
- Washington filed a second § 2255 motion in 2006, which was denied as unauthorized for lack of certificate under § 2255(h).
- In 2007 Washington filed a Rule 60(b) motion (styled as Rule 63/60(b)(4)) seeking relief from the 2006 order; Judge Pregerson denied it on the merits as a void order finding no due process defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washington's Rule 60(b)(4) motion is a legitimate motion or disguised § 2255 | Washington argues the motion targets the voidness of the order, not the merits. | Government contends it pleads merits, thus a disguised § 2255 and requires authorization. | Disguised § 2255; must be authorized; district court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether § 2255(h) authorization was required to pursue a second or successive § 2255 claim | Washington contends Rule 60(b) bypasses authorization. | Government asserts authorization is required for second or successive motions. | Authorization required; absent certification, dismissal warranted |
| Whether the asserted defects amounted to a defect in the integrity of the habeas proceedings | Washington claims the Tevrizian order was void due to improper handling. | Defendant argues these are merits challenges, not integrity defects. | Claims were merits-based and constitute § 2255 motions, not Rule 60(b) integrity defects |
| What is the proper disposition of Washington's Rule 60(b) motion once found to be a disguised § 2255 | washington seeks relief on the underlying convictions. | Government seeks dismissal for lack of authorization. | Remand with dismissal as unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (focus on substance of Rule 60(b) motions; distinguish defects in integrity from meritorious claims)
- Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (U.S. 2000) (timeliness tolling interpretation for petitions)
- Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2011) (§ 2255(e) avenue to § 2241 when remedy inadequate)
- Rodriguez v. Mitchell, 252 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001) (example of a legitimate Rule 60(b)(3) fraud-on-court claim)
- Buenrostro v. United States, 638 F.3d 720 (9th Cir. 2011) (applies Gonzalez analysis in § 2255 context)
- Reyes-Alvarado, 963 F.2d 1184 (9th Cir. 1992) (newly discovered evidence criterion for second or successive motions)