Hall v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT SEATTLE 6 RANDY LEE HALL, Case No. C22-1639RSM 7 8 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 9 v. 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 11 Respondent. 12 13 Petitioner Randy Lee Hall filed a § 2255 Motion in July of 2021. See Case No. C21- 14 992-RSM, Dkt. #1. On January 27, 2023, this Court denied this first § 2255 motion. Case No. 15 16 C21-992-RSM, Dkt. #6. Mr. Hall has now filed a second § 2255 Motion, Dkt. #1. Hall styled 17 the Motion as one seeking compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). However, this 18 Court has interpreted it as a motion under § 2255 as Hall is seeking to vacate his sentence 19 because one of his prior convictions has been vacated under State v. Blake, 481 P.3d 521 20 (2021). See Dkts. #1 and #4. 21 22 This matter comes before the Court on the United States of America’s Motion to 23 Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Dkt. #6. Petitioner Hall has not filed an opposition brief or 24 otherwise communicated with the Court. 25 A defendant who seeks to file “a second or successive motion” under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 26 must first obtain permission from “a panel of the appropriate court of appeals.” 28 U.S.C. § 27 28 2255(h). This is a jurisdictional prerequisite. If a second or successive § 2255 motion is filed without the required certification from the appellate court, the district court lacks jurisdiction to 1 2 consider the motion. United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1065 (9th Cir. 2011); United 3 States v. Lopez, 577 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 4 157 (2007). 5 “The phrase ‘second or successive’ is . . . a ‘term of art’” in the habeas context and does 6 not include every second-in-time request for habeas relief. Magwood v. Patterson, 130 S. Ct. 7 8 2788, 2790 (2010). For habeas purposes, “a new petition is ‘second or successive’ if it raises 9 claims that were or could have been adjudicated on their merits in an earlier petition.” Woods v. 10 Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2008). The Ninth Circuit has stated that “prisoners may file 11 second-in-time petitions based on events that do not occur until a first petition is concluded.” 12 13 United States v. Buenrostro, 638 F.3d 720, 725 (9th Cir. 2011). 14 The Government argues that the instant petition is based on events that occurred while 15 Mr. Hall’s first petition was pending and that he had eleven months to amend his original 16 petition to include the events and arguments at issue now. Dkt. #6 at 5. The Court agrees. Mr. 17 Hall offers no evidence or argument to the contrary. Where, as in this case, a new claim ripens 18 19 while the first § 2255 motion is pending, the petitioner should move to amend the pending 20 claim to add the new claim. See Goodrum v. Busby, 824 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2016); 21 Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888–89 (9th Cir. 2008). 22 Accordingly, the instant Motion is a “second or successive motion” within the meaning 23 of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) and Mr. Hall is required to obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit 24 25 prior to filing. The Court lacks jurisdiction and this case is properly dismissed on that basis. 26 This Motion will be referred to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to Ninth Circuit 27 Rule 22-3(a). 28 A petitioner seeking post-conviction relief under § 2255 may appeal this Court’s 1 2 dismissal of his petition only after obtaining a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) from a 3 district or circuit judge. A COA may issue only where a petitioner has made “a substantial 4 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). A petitioner 5 satisfies this standard “by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district 6 court’s resolution of [her] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 7 8 presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 9 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003). The Court finds that the law and 10 facts above are clear and there is no basis to issue a COA. 11 I. CONCLUSION 12 13 Having considered Petitioner’s motion, Respondent’s answer thereto, and the remainder 14 of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 15 1. The Government’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #6) is GRANTED. No COA shall be 16 issued. 17 2. This Motion is REFERRED to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to 18 19 Circuit Rule 22-3(a). 20 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward a copy of this Order to Petitioner and 21 all counsel of record. 22 DATED this 26th day of April, 2023. 23

24 25 A 26 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28