36 F.4th 974
9th Cir.2022Background
- Willie Jones pled guilty in 2013 to assault causing serious bodily injury (18 U.S.C. §113(a)(6)/1153) and to a §924(c)(1)(A) firearm offense; he received consecutive terms (63 + 120 months).
- Jones filed a §2255 motion in 2020 invoking Alleyne/Davis; the district court denied relief and declined a COA; Jones then applied to the Ninth Circuit for leave to file a second or successive §2255 motion raising Davis and, later, a Borden-based claim.
- Davis v. United States (2019) invalidated the §924(c) residual clause (§924(c)(3)(B)); Borden v. United States (2021) held that reckless offenses do not qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA elements clause; the government concedes §113(a)(6) can be committed recklessly.
- Central legal question: whether 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(1) (which bars claims presented in a prior §2254 application) is jurisdictional and whether it applies to second/successive federal §2255 motions, or whether §2255(h) governs the gatekeeping inquiry.
- The Ninth Circuit held §2244(b)(1) is jurisdictional but does not apply to §2255 motions; instead courts must evaluate second/successive §2255 applications under §2255(h). Applying §2255(h), Jones failed to make a prima facie showing for either his Davis claim (previously presented) or his Borden claim (statutory, not constitutional), so his application was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(1) operate as a jurisdictional bar and apply to second/successive §2255 motions? | Jones: §2244(b)(1) should not defeat his §2255 gateway; review under §2255(h) is required. | Gov: §2244(b)(1) is a claim-processing rule / does not govern §2255 (and at oral argument said it was nonjurisdictional). | §2244(b)(1) is jurisdictional, but it does not apply to §2255 motions; use §2255(h) gatekeeping instead. |
| Is Jones’s Davis-based challenge a "new rule" or otherwise "previously unavailable" under §2255(h)(2)? | Davis invalidates the residual clause, so Jones’s §924(c) conviction is invalid. | The district court already considered Jones’s Davis argument; the claim was available and could have been appealed. | Davis claim fails §2255(h)(2) review because it was previously presented/available; no authorization. |
| Does Borden announce a new, retroactive constitutional rule supporting a §2255(h)(2) filing? | Borden shows §113(a)(6) may be reckless and therefore cannot be an elements-clause predicate for §924(c). | Although the government concedes §113(a)(6) no longer qualifies as a predicate, Borden is statutory interpretation, not a new constitutional rule. | Borden is statutory interpretation, not a new constitutional rule under §2255(h)(2); it does not authorize relief. |
| Should the court authorize filing of a second/successive §2255 motion vacating the §924(c) conviction? | Jones seeks authorization to file a new motion relying on Davis/Borden. | Government opposes / argues legal requirements are not met. | Court denies authorization: Jones fails to make prima facie showings under §2255(h). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (invalidated the §924(c) residual clause)
- Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) (held reckless offenses are not violent felonies under ACCA elements clause)
- Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012) (jurisdictional vs. claim-processing analysis guidance)
- Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996) (describes gatekeeping mechanism for second or successive petitions)
- Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010) (term "second or successive" and scope of relief)
- Ezell v. United States, 778 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2015) (refused §2255 relief based on statutory interpretation decision; discusses Descamps)
- Williams v. United States, 927 F.3d 427 (6th Cir. 2019) (held §2244(b)(1) does not apply to §2255 motions)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010) (statutory interpretation principles regarding jurisdictional text)