United States v. Joseph Benson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 18, 2024
• Docket: 24-6240
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6240 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7106

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH JAMES CAIN BENSON, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Boston,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 24-6240

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (4:17-cr-00045-RAJ-RJK- 1; 4:21-cv-00089-RAJ)

Submitted: April 30, 2024 Decided: June 18, 2024 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6240 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

No. 22-7106, dismissed; No. 24-6240, vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph James Cain Benson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6240 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Joseph James Cain Benson seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b) motion. The order denying relief on Benson’s § 2255 motion is not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of

the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Benson has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, in No. 22-7106, we deny Benson’s motions for

abeyance and for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the district court’s

order denying relief on his § 2255 motion.

In No. 24-6240, the district court properly determined that the claims raised in the

Rule 60(b) motion did not challenge a defect in the proceeding, “but in effect ask[ed] for a

second chance to have the merits determined favorably.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S.

524, 532 n.5 (2005). Therefore, Benson’s motion was not a true Rule 60(b) motion, but a

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6240 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

successive § 2255 motion. See id. at 531-32; see also United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d

392, 397-99 (4th Cir. 2015). Absent prefiling authorization from this court, the district

court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Benson’s successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C.

§§ 2244(b)(3), 2255(h). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order denying

Benson’s Rule 60(b) motion and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.* See Bixby v. Stirling, 90 F.4th 140, 155 (4th Cir. 2024) (holding, when

Rule 60(b) movant seeks “permission to raise new and revised claims in a second or

successive” habeas motion, district court should “dismiss[]—not den[y]—the motion”).

We 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.

No. 22-7106, DISMISSED; No. 24-6240, VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

* A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s order denying a Rule 60(b) motion that is in substance a successive § 2255 motion. See McRae, 793 F.3d at 400.