United States v. McCoy ( 2018 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 27, 2018
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 18-4057
(D.C. Nos. 2:16-CV-00487-TS &
HICKORY WESLEY McCOY, 2:12-CR-00218-TS-1)
(D. Utah)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before McHUGH, O’BRIEN, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Hickory Wesley McCoy, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a
certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s decision construing
his motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) as an unauthorized second or
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. For
the reasons that follow, we grant a COA, vacate the district court’s dismissal order,
and remand for the district court to consider the Rule 60(b) motion on the merits.
*
This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not
materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);
10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law
of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
I. Background
A jury found McCoy guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to
distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and
being a felon in possession of a firearm. The charges arose from a traffic stop of
McCoy’s vehicle. The officer stopped McCoy for violating Utah’s left-lane statute,
which prohibits vehicles in the left lane from impeding traffic, see Utah Code Ann.
§ 41-6a-704. Prior to trial, McCoy’s counsel moved to suppress the evidence
discovered from the search of the vehicle—marijuana, drug paraphernalia, a handgun,
and ammunition.
The district court denied the motion to suppress. McCoy appealed from the
denial of his motion to suppress and the district court’s judgment of conviction. We
affirmed. United States v. McCoy, 614 F. App’x 964, 965 (10th Cir. 2015).
He subsequently filed a § 2255 motion in which he asserted four claims for
relief: 1) pre-trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise
arguments that addressed the reasonable suspicion standard; 2) pre-trial counsel
provided ineffective assistance by not retaining expert services in relation to the
motion to suppress; 3) the district court erred in ruling on the motion to suppress by
failing to find or hold McCoy impeded traffic in the left lane and misconstruing the
argument in his suppression memorandum; and 4) appellate counsel provided
ineffective assistance by raising the impediment issue as a mistake of law argument
when it had not been preserved for appeal. The district court denied the three claims
for ineffective assistance of counsel on the merits. See R., Vol. 1 at 59-63. The
2
district court did not reach the merits of the third claim (the “suppression-order”
claim). The court explained that McCoy had challenged the district court’s decision
to deny the motion to suppress on direct appeal and, under § 2255, he was not
permitted to “raise issues that ha[d] been previously considered and disposed of on
direct appeal.” Id. The court therefore determined the suppression-order claim was
procedurally barred and it did not reach the merits of the claim. Id. at 62. We denied
McCoy’s request for a COA to appeal from the district court’s decision on his § 2255
motion. United States v. McCoy, 671 F. App’x 715, 715 (10th Cir. 2016).
McCoy then filed the underlying motion seeking relief under Rule 60(b). The
district court determined that the Rule 60(b) motion should be construed as a second
or successive § 2255 motion. Because McCoy had not received authorization from
this court to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, the district court dismissed it
for lack of jurisdiction.
II. Discussion
A. COA Analysis
To appeal from the district court’s decision, McCoy must obtain a COA.
See United States v. Harper, 545 F.3d 1230, 1233 (10th Cir. 2008). Because the
district court decided the Rule 60(b) motion on a procedural ground, McCoy must
show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid
claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.
3
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). We conclude McCoy has satisfied both prongs
of the Slack test.
A prisoner may not file a second or successive § 2255 motion unless he first
obtains an order from the circuit court authorizing the district court to consider the
motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); id. § 2255(h). Absent such authorization, a
district court lacks jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive § 2255
motion. In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
A Rule 60(b) motion should be treated as a second or successive § 2255
motion “if it in substance or effect asserts or reasserts a federal basis for relief from
the petitioner’s underlying conviction.” Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213, 1215
(10th Cir. 2006). A Rule 60(b) motion may not be treated as a successive § 2255
motion if it “either (1) challenges only a procedural ruling of the habeas court which
precluded a merits determination . . . ; or (2) challenges a defect in the integrity of
the federal habeas proceeding.” Id. at 1216.
A Rule 60(b) motion that challenges a district court’s procedural ruling that a
claim is procedurally barred—thereby precluding a merits determination—should be
treated as a Rule 60(b) motion and not a successive § 2255 motion. Id. A Rule 60(b)
motion that contends that a district court failed to rule on a § 2255 claim that was
properly presented to it is asserting a defect in the integrity of the § 2255 proceedings
and should be treated as a Rule 60(b) motion, not a second or successive § 2255
motion. Id. at 1225.
4
In McCoy’s Rule 60(b) motion, he argued that the district court “failed to rule”
on an issue he raised in his § 2255 motion—that the district court erred in its order
denying the motion to suppress by failing to find or rule that he impeded traffic in the
left lane—“based upon the erroneous conclusion that the issue was raised on direct
appeal and ruled on by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.” R., Vol. 1 at 72-73.
In his COA application, he asserts that his Rule 60(b) motion should not be
treated as a second or successive § 2255 motion because he “argued that the district
court erred in failing to consider one of the habeas claims in his 2255.” COA Appl.
at 1. He further explained that he raised the suppression-order claim in his § 2255
motion, “however the district court did not consider this claim[,] [s]tating that the
issue . . . had been previously ruled on, on direct appeal.” Id. at 2.
Although McCoy appears to be mixing together two bases for challenging the
district court’s decision in a Rule 60(b) motion—an erroneous procedural ruling that
precluded a merits determination and a failure to rule on an issue that was properly
presented—“[a] pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a
less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Hall v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). “[T]his rule means that if the court can
reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could
prevail, it should do so despite the plaintiff’s . . . confusion of various legal
theories . . . .” Id. Considering McCoy’s Rule 60(b) motion and COA application
under this standard, he alleged a valid basis for relief under Rule 60(b)—a challenge
to the district court’s procedural ruling that the suppression-order claim in his § 2255
5
motion was procedurally barred, which precluded a merits determination of that
claim. See Spitznas, 464 F.3d at 1216. Reasonable jurists could therefore debate the
district court’s decision to treat his Rule 60(b) motion as a second or successive
§ 2255 motion and to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.
Regarding the other prong of the Slack test, “[w]e will only take a ‘quick’ look
at the federal habeas petition to determine whether [the petitioner] has facially
alleged the denial of a constitutional right.” Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 803
(10th Cir. 2000) (brackets and internal quotation marks). McCoy’s Rule 60(b) claim
arises from the claim in his underlying § 2255 motion that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress because the traffic stop was not objectively justified.
See Dulworth v. Jones, 496 F.3d 1133, 1137-38 (10th Cir. 2007), abrogated in part
by Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009) (explaining that when considering a COA
application from a procedural ruling involving a Rule 60(b) motion, the source of the
constitutional claim is the underlying habeas petition). Reasonable jurists could
debate whether this § 2255 claim states a valid claim for the denial of a constitutional
right. See Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530, 536 (2014) (“A traffic stop for a
suspected violation of law is a ‘seizure’ of the occupants of the vehicle and therefore
must be conducted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment.”). Because McCoy
has satisfied both prongs of the Slack test, we grant a COA.
B. District Court’s Decision Dismissing the Rule 60(b) Motion
In the decision now before us on appeal, the district court explained that in his
§ 2255 motion, McCoy “argued, among other things, that the Court’s ruling on the
6
motion to suppress was erroneous. In particular, Petitioner argued that the
suppression order failed to find or hold that Petitioner impeded traffic in the left
lane.” R., Vol. 1 at 77. The district court then stated that it had “rejected Petitioner’s
argument” in its order denying the § 2255 motion because “it had found that
Petitioner committed a left-lane violation, which ‘necessarily included the finding
that Petitioner impeded traffic.’” Id. (quoting R., Vol. 1 at 61 (Docket 10 at 4)). The
court then characterized McCoy’s Rule 60(b) motion as “continu[ing] to challenge
the Court’s ruling on the suppression issue in his criminal case” and thus “asserting a
federal basis for relief from his underlying conviction.” Id. at 79. The court
therefore construed McCoy’s Rule 60(b) motion as a second or successive § 2255
motion.
We conclude the district court erred in construing McCoy’s Rule 60(b) motion
as a second or successive § 2255 motion. The district court’s description of the
§ 2255 proceedings fails to acknowledge that the court ruled that the
suppression-order claim was procedurally barred. Instead, the court’s description of
its resolution of the suppression-order claim noted above makes it seem as though it
resolved that claim on the merits. See R., Vol. 1 at 77. But the quotation from its
order denying the § 2255 motion that the court provides to support its statement that
it “rejected” the suppression-order claim is from its analysis denying the first claim
for ineffective assistance of counsel, not from its discussion of the suppression-order
claim. Compare id. (quoting Docket 10 at 4), with id. at 61 (Docket 10 at 4)
(denying first claim for ineffective assistance of counsel), and id. at 62 (Docket 10 at
7
5) (concluding that suppression-order claim was procedurally barred). Although it is
possible that statements the district court made in its § 2255 decision resolving the
first claim for ineffective assistance of counsel on the merits could also support a
ruling on the merits of the suppression-order claim, the court did not actually rule on
the merits of the suppression-order claim.
Because the district court did not reject McCoy’s suppression-order claim on
the merits but instead concluded that the claim was procedurally barred, McCoy
could properly raise a challenge to the court’s procedural ruling in his Rule 60(b)
motion. And his Rule 60(b) motion stated a facially valid basis for seeking relief
under Rule 60(b)—that “[t]he district court failed to rule on the [suppression-order]
issue based upon the erroneous conclusion that the issue was raised on direct appeal
and ruled on by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.” Id. at 73. McCoy’s challenge
to the district court’s procedural-bar ruling was properly brought in a Rule 60(b)
motion and the district court had jurisdiction to consider it on the merits.
III. Conclusion
We have explained that when a district court improperly characterizes a Rule
60(b) motion as a second or successive petition, we will remand to permit the district
court to address the Rule 60(b) motion in the first instance. Spitznas, 464 F.3d at
1219. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal order and remand for the
district court to consider the merits of the Rule 60(b) motion.
McCoy’s request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied as moot.
The relevant statutory provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), does not permit litigants to
8
avoid payment of fees, only prepayment of those fees. Since we have reached the
merits of this matter, prepayment of fees is no longer an issue. McCoy remains
obligated to pay all filing and docketing fees. He is directed to pay the fees in full to
the Clerk of the District Court for the District of Utah.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
9