Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00595/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00595-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPH KENNEDY, )

)

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:14cv595-WHA

) (WO)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On June 10, 2014, federal inmate Joseph Kennedy (“Kennedy) filed the instant pro

se motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the sentence imposed on him in 2005

following his conviction for a federal controlled substance offense. Doc. No. 1. He argues 1

that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during plea negotiations and that the

district court improperly enhanced his sentence based on facts not alleged in the indictment

or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. For the reasons that follow, Kennedy’s

§ 2255 motion, his fourth, is due to be dismissed as successive.

I. DISCUSSION

Kennedy’s first § 2255 motion challenging his controlled substance conviction and

240-month sentence was filed on November 13, 2006. See Civil Action No. 2:06cv1028-

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Kennedy pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with 1

intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

and 846 in this court on October 18, 2004. On July 13, 2005, the court sentenced Kennedy to 240

months in prison. Judgment was entered on July 26, 2005. Kennedy did not appeal.

Case 2:14-cv-00595-WHA-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 4
LES, Doc. No. 1. On December 24, 2008, this court denied that § 2255 motion as timebarred and dismissed the action with prejudice. Id., Doc. No. 20 (order of district court

adopting recommendation of magistrate judge [Doc. No. 18] and dismissing § 2255 action

with prejudice).

On January 21, 2012, Kennedy filed a second § 2255 motion attacking his conviction

and sentence. See Civil Action 2:12cv73-WHA, Doc. No. 1. On October 19, 2012, this

court dismissed that motion because it constituted a successive § 2255 motion filed without

the requisite authorization from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, depriving this court

of jurisdiction to consider the merits of any claims raised in the motion. Id., Doc. Nos. 10

2

and 11 (final judgment and order of district court adopting recommendation of magistrate

judge [Doc. No. 7] and dismissing § 2255 motion).

On July 5, 2012, this court received a third § 2255 motion from Kennedy attacking

his conviction and sentence. See Civil Action 2:12cv582-WHA, Doc. No. 1. On September

19, 2012, that motion was also dismissed by this court as a successive § 2255 motion filed

without the requisite authorization from the appellate court. Id., Doc. Nos. 7 and 8 (final

judgment and order of district court adopting recommendation of magistrate judge [Doc. No.

For purposes of successive-motion rules, the dismissal of an initial § 2255 motion as untimely 2

“counts” and renders a subsequent § 2255 motion “successive.” See Villanueva v. United States, 346

F.3d 55, 59-61 (2 Cir. 2003) (holding “that a habeas or § 2255 petition that is properly dismissed nd

as time-barred under AEDPA constitutes an adjudication on the merits for successive purposes.”);

Altman v. Benik, 337 F.3d 764, 766 (7 Cir. 2003) (holding “that a prior untimely petition does count th

because a statute of limitations bar is not a curable technical or procedural deficiency but rather

operates as an irremediable defect barring consideration of the petitioner’s substantive claims”). 

2

Case 2:14-cv-00595-WHA-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/01/14 Page 2 of 4
3] and dismissing § 2255 motion).

As this court noted in dismissing Kennedy’s second and third § 2255 motions, the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) provides that, to file a second

or successive § 2255 motion in the district court, the movant must first move in the

appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the

motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The appellate court, in turn, must certify that the

second or successive § 2255 motion contains “(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven

and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and

convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of

the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral

review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).

As was the case with his second and third § 2255 motions, Kennedy has again failed

to obtain certification from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this court to

consider a successive § 2255 motion. A district court lacks the jurisdiction to consider a

successive § 2255 motion where the movant fails to obtain permission from the appellate

court to file a successive motion. See, e.g., Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216

(11 Cir. 2003); Boone v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections, 377 F.3d 1315, 1317 (11 Cir. th th

2004). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Kennedy’s current § 2255

motion, his fourth, and the motion is due to be summarily dismissed.

II. CONCLUSION

3

Case 2:14-cv-00595-WHA-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/01/14 Page 3 of 4
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the § 2255

motion filed by Kennedy on June 10, 2014 (Doc. No. 1) be denied and this case dismissed,

because Kennedy has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals authorizing this court to consider a successive § 2255 motion.

It is further

ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation on or

before July 15, 2014. A partymust specificallyidentifythe findings in the Recommendation

to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be

considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings

and recommendations shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court

of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal

factual findings accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error

or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. th

Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard,

th

661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc). th

DONE, this 1 day of July, 2014.

st

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:14-cv-00595-WHA-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/01/14 Page 4 of 4