Aaron Doxie, III v. Jeffrey Dillman , 624 F. App'x 109 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7304
AARON DOXIE, III, a/k/a Aharon Azaryah Nearyah Hakahan,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN JEFFREY N. DILLMAN; HAROLD CLARKE, Director,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00505-AWA-DEM)
Submitted: November 25, 2015 Decided: December 14, 2015
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron Doxie, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Doxie, III, appeals from the district court’s order
denying his self-styled motion to reopen his September 2013
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(2012). We vacate the district court’s order and remand for
further proceedings.
“[A] Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas proceeding that attacks
‘the substance of the federal court’s resolution of a claim on
the merits’ is not a true Rule 60(b) motion, but rather a
successive habeas [application]” and is subject to the
preauthorization requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2012)
for successive applications. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d
392, 397 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S.
524, 531-32 (2005)). By contrast, a “Rule 60(b) motion that
challenges ‘some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas
proceedings’ . . . is a true Rule 60(b) motion, and is not
subject to the preauthorization requirement.” Id. (quoting
Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 531-32). Where, however, a motion
“‘presents claims subject to the requirements for successive
applications as well as claims cognizable under Rule 60(b),’”
such a motion is a mixed Rule 60(b)/§ 2254 petition. Id. at 400
(quoting United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir.
2003)).
2
In his motion to reopen, Doxie sought a remedy for a
perceived flaw in his § 2254 proceeding and raised a direct
attack on his convictions and sentences. Accordingly, the
motion was a mixed Rule 60(b)/§ 2254 petition. * McRae, 793 F.3d
at 397, 400; see Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532 n.4 (holding that a
movant files a true Rule 60(b) motion “when he . . . asserts
that a previous ruling which precluded a merits determination
was in error”); Winestock, 340 F.3d at 207 (stating that “a
motion directly attacking the prisoner’s conviction or sentence
will usually amount to a successive application”).
The district court did not afford Doxie the opportunity to
elect between deleting his successive § 2254 claim or having his
entire motion treated as a successive § 2254 petition.
See McRae, 793 F.3d at 400 (“This Court has made clear that
‘[w]hen [a] motion presents claims subject to the requirements
for successive applications as well as claims cognizable under
Rule 60(b), the district court should afford the applicant an
opportunity to elect between deleting the improper claims or
having the entire motion treated as a successive application.’”
(quoting Winestock, 340 F.3d at 207)). We therefore grant leave
* It is the “long standing practice” of this court to
classify pro se pleadings from prisoners like Doxie “according
to their contents, without regard to their captions.”
Winestock, 340 F.3d at 203.
3
to proceed in forma pauperis, vacate the district court’s order,
and remand for further proceedings.
We deny Doxie’s motion for a certificate of appealability
and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4