Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_00-cr-00872/USCOURTS-azd-3_00-cr-00872-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vernon Austin
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

VERNON AUSTIN, ) 9th Cir. No. 06-16005

)

Appellant/Petitioner, ) D. Ariz. No. CIV 03-708 PCT RCB

) D. Ariz. No. CR 00-872 PCT RCB

vs. )

) NOTICE AND PROPOSED ORDER

UNITED STATES of AMERICA, )

) SUBJECT TO LEAVE OF THE

Appellee/Respondent. ) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ) FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In the matter currently before the Court of Appeals,

Appellant/Petitioner Vernon Austin appeals (1) this court's order

and judgment of January 5, 2005 (doc. ## 80-81) denying and

dismissing his First Amended § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. # 63), and (2)

this court's order of December 13, 2005 (doc. # 97) denying

Appellant's motion for reconsideration (doc. # 95) of its earlier

finding that it would lack jurisdiction over his proposed amended §

2255 motion due to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act's ("AEDPA") bar on successive petitions, 28 U.S.C. §§

2244(b)(3)(A), 2255. A review of the record has revealed an error 

Case 3:00-cr-00872-RCB Document 111 Filed 07/14/06 Page 1 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

of oversight in the order and judgment (doc. ## 80-81) that are the

subject of the appeal now pending. Accordingly, this court

proposes an order to correct the error pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(a), subject to leave of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 16, 2003, Appellant filed an Amended Motion to Vacate,

Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. #

63) raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The

Government filed its response in opposition to the amended motion

on September 8, 2003 (doc. # 65).

After the Government filed its response, Appellant sought

twice to have his amended motion dismissed without prejudice so

that he could file a second amended § 2255 motion raising an

additional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mot. (doc.

## 66, 68). While these requests should have been resolved

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), the

magistrate judge construed these motions (doc. ## 66, 68) as

requests for entry of default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 55, and denied them on that basis (doc. ## 67, 69). 

The magistrate judge then issued a report and recommendation

("R&R") (doc. # 71) recommending that the amended motion (doc. #

63) be denied in its entirety, and Appellant filed timely

objections (doc. # 72).

In its order entered January 5, 2005 (doc. # 80) ruling upon

Appellant's first amended § 2255 motion (doc. # 63), this court

also addressed Appellant's motion to amend (doc. # 78) as well as a

petition requesting copies of certain documents relating to

Case 3:00-cr-00872-RCB Document 111 Filed 07/14/06 Page 2 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Appellant's trial and sentencing (doc. # 77). In denying these

requests (doc. ## 77-78) this court stated:

Movant's motion to stay essentially

requests the Court to refrain from addressing

the pending R&R and instead allow Movant to

amend his § 2255 motion. Mot. (doc. # 78). 

Since Movant's pending motion has already been

responded to by the government and the

Magistrate has issued an R&R, the Court will

deny Movant's motion for a stay and resolve the

pending § 2255 motion on the merits. However,

the Court's resolution of the R&R will not be

case dispositive. Movant may file a motion to

amend his § 2255 motion within ten (10) days of

the receipt of this order. This will give

Movant the opportunity to assert any claims he

has which were not included in his first

amended § 2255 motion, subject to any and all

defenses.

. . . Usually there would be no reason to

provide the documents sought at this stage in

the proceeding. Nevertheless, because Movant

will have an opportunity to file a motion to

amend his § 2255 motion, the Court will reserve

ruling on Movant's motion requesting documents

until it resolves the issue of whether Movant

will be permitted to file a second amended §

2255 motion.

Order (doc. # 80) at 1-2 (emphasis added). Consistent with those

expectations, this court's order expressly granted Appellant an

opportunity to file a motion to amend his § 2255 motion. Id.

However, rather than dismiss Appellant's first amended § 2255

motion (doc. # 63) without prejudice as intended, the order

language indicated that the dismissal was with prejudice. Id. As

a result of that language, final judgment (doc. # 81) was prepared

by the clerk and entered the same day, terminating the case.

Thereafter, this court sua sponte raised the issue of subject

matter jurisdiction, and determined that it had improvidently

granted Appellant leave to file a second amended § 2255 motion in

light of the AEDPA's bar on successive petitions. Orders (doc. ##

Case 3:00-cr-00872-RCB Document 111 Filed 07/14/06 Page 3 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) provides as follows:

Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other

parts of the record and errors therein arising

from oversight or omission may be corrected by

the court at any time of its own initiative or on

the motion of any party and after such notice, if

any, as the court orders. During the pendency of

an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected

before the appeal is docketed in the appellate

court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending

may be so corrected with leave of the appellate

court.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) (emphasis added).

- 4 -

94, 97). Appellant then filed an application for leave to file a

second or successive § 2255 motion with the Court of Appeals on

January 18, 2006. The application was denied on April 19, 2006. 

Mot. (doc. # 102), Ex. A.

This court now finds that the inclusion of the "with

prejudice" language in the order and judgment of January 5, 2005

(doc. ## 80-81) was the result of an error arising from oversight. 

At the time the order and judgment in question were entered, this

court intended for the dismissal to be without prejudice, and to

rule only on the ineffective assistance claim asserted in the first

amended § 2255 motion (doc. # 63) while allowing Appellant an

opportunity to file a second amended § 2255 motion to raise the

ineffective assistance claim he had sought to introduce three times

earlier (doc. ## 66, 68, 78). Although a district court may

ordinarily correct such an error "at any time of its own

initiative," this court understands that it is without jurisdiction

to correct a mistake during the pendency of an appeal without first

obtaining leave of the Court of Appeals.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P.

Case 3:00-cr-00872-RCB Document 111 Filed 07/14/06 Page 4 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Since the docketing of the appeal Appellant has filed, among

other motions, a motion for reconsideration (doc. # 110) of this

court's orders of November 10 and December 13, 2005 (doc. ## 94, 97).

Because this matter is currently pending on appeal, this court will

not act on these motions at this time without authorization from the

Court of Appeals.

- 5 -

60(a); see also Huey v. Teledyne, Inc., 608 F.2d 1234, 1237 (9th

Cir. 1979) (holding that Rule 60(a) corrective order entered after

docketing of appeal was "technically invalid," because district

judge did not seek leave of the appellate court).

This court therefore requests leave of the Court of Appeals to

correct the order of January 5, 2005 (doc. # 80) and vacate the

judgment (doc. # 81) entered the same day. Subject to the granting

of such leave, the final sentence of the order, which currently

states that "Movant Austin's Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside,

or Correct Sentence (doc. # 63) is DENIED and dismissed with

prejudice," see Order (doc. # 80) at 6, would be corrected to state

that "Movant Austin's Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence (doc. # 63) is DENIED without prejudice subject to

Movant Austin's opportunity to file a second amended § 2255

motion," and the judgment (doc. # 81) would be vacated accordingly.

If leave is granted to make these changes, this court would

also be inclined to reconsider its orders of November 10 and

December 13, 2005 (doc. ## 94, 97), which essentially concluded

that this court had improvidently granted Appellant leave to file a

second amended § 2255 motion in light of the AEDPA's bar on

successive petitions.2

II. DISCUSSION

A district judge may utilize Rule 60(a) to "'to make an order

Case 3:00-cr-00872-RCB Document 111 Filed 07/14/06 Page 5 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

reflect the actual intentions of the court, plus necessary

implications.'" In re Jee, 799 F.2d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 1986)

(quoting Jones & Guerrero Co. v. Sealift Pac., 650 F.2d 1072, 1074

(9th Cir. 1981)). Rule 60(a) allows the correction of errors such

as those "where what is spoken, written or recorded is not what the

court intended to speak, write or record." Id. (citing Waggoner v.

R. McGray, Inc., 743 F.2d 643, 644 (9th Cir. 1984)). Such errors

may be corrected whether committed by the judge or the clerk. See

id. A change under Rule 60(a) is appropriate where it implements

the result intended by the district court at the time the order was

entered. See Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 918 F.2d 1439, 1445 (9th

Cir. 1990) (upholding district court's Rule 60(a) corrective order

as an appropriate clarification of the result "intended in its

original judgment").

In the instant case, the written opinion of January 5, 2005

(doc. # 80) reflects this court's intention at that time to dismiss

Appellant's first amended § 2255 motion (doc. # 63) without

prejudice subject to his opportunity to file a second amended §

2255 motion. In denying Appellant's motion to amend (doc. # 78),

the opinion notes that "the resolution of the R&R will not be case

dispositive," and expressly contemplates Appellant's right to file

an amended § 2255 motion. Order (doc. # 80) at 1-2. Similarly, in

denying Appellant's request for documents (doc. # 77), the opinion

again references Appellant's "opportunity to file a motion to amend

his § 2255 motion." Id. at 2. Finally, the order language

specifically grants "Movant Vernon Austin . . . ten (10) days from

receipt of th[e] order to file a motion to amend his § 2255

motion," further demonstrating this court's intention to dismiss

Case 3:00-cr-00872-RCB Document 111 Filed 07/14/06 Page 6 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

Appellant's first amended § 2255 motion (doc. # 63) without

prejudice at the time the order was entered on January 5, 2005. 

Id. at 6. For the foregoing reasons, this court finds that the

language indicating dismissal "with prejudice" was inadvertently

included in its order (doc. # 80) as a result of oversight, is

inconsistent with the remainder of the written opinion and order,

and does not reflect this court's intention at that time to dismiss

the case without prejudice subject to Appellant's opportunity to

file a second amended § 2255 motion.

Accordingly, this court seeks leave of the Court of Appeals to

correct the order of January 5, 2005 (doc. # 80) and vacate the

judgment entered the same day (doc. # 81) pursuant to Rule 60(a) to

reflect that Appellant's first amended § 2255 motion (doc. # 63)

was dismissed without prejudice. Subject to the granting of such

leave, the final sentence of the court's order, which currently

states that "Movant Austin's Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside,

or Correct Sentence (doc. # 63) is DENIED and dismissed with

prejudice," see Order (doc. # 80) at 6, would be corrected to state

that "Movant Austin's Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence (doc. # 63) is DENIED without prejudice subject to

Movant Austin's opportunity to file a second amended § 2255

motion," and the judgment (doc. # 81) would be vacated accordingly.

If leave is granted to make these changes, this court would

also reconsider its orders of November 10 and December 13, 2005

(doc. ## 94, 97), which essentially concluded that this court had

improvidently granted Appellant leave to file a second amended §

2255 motion in light of the AEDPA's bar on successive petitions.

Because the AEDPA does not define what constitutes a "second

Case 3:00-cr-00872-RCB Document 111 Filed 07/14/06 Page 7 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

or successive" petition, the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit

have turned to pre-AEDPA "abuse of the writ" jurisprudence for

guidance. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86 (2000);

Esposito v. United States, 135 F.3d 111, 113. (9th Cir. 1997). One

category of cases in which courts have found no "abuse of the writ"

are those where a federal court denied an earlier petition without

prejudice. Camarano v. Irvin, 98 F.3d 44, 46 (9th Cir. 1996).

[A]lthough Congress plainly intended the AEDPA

amendments to work significant procedural

changes in habeas corpus review, nothing in the

legislative history of the AEDPA or the Supreme

Court's Felker decision upholding the AEDPA's

successive petition provisions "suggests that

Congress wished to depart from the longstanding

and widely accepted rule" that the dismissal of

a petition without prejudice is no bar to

refiling.

Esposito, 135 F.3d at 113 (quoting Camarano, 98 F.3d at 46). Thus,

it has frequently been held that a federal habeas petition is not a

second or successive petition if it is filed after an initial

habeas petition, which was unadjudicated on its merits and

dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

See Slack, 529 U.S. at 485-86; Camarano, 98 F.3d at 46.

Although in the instant case the ineffective assistance claim

raised in Appellant's first amended § 2255 motion (doc. # 63) was

adjudicated on the merits, this court would find that the dismissal

of that motion without prejudice and with express leave to file a

second amended § 2255 motion would not trigger the AEDPA's bar on

successive petitions with respect to any new claims raised on the

second amended § 2255 motion. Cf. Camarano, 98 F.3d at 46-47

("Inasmuch as the [AEDPA's] new gatekeeping provisions are rooted

in the writ abuse doctrine which is itself a qualified application

Case 3:00-cr-00872-RCB Document 111 Filed 07/14/06 Page 8 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

of the doctrine of res judicata, . . . a dismissal without

prejudice can have no preclusive effect on subsequent petitions.")

(internal quotations and citations omitted).

Therefore, if leave is granted to make the above described

corrections to the January 5, 2005 order and judgment (doc. ## 80-

81), and the matter remanded to confer jurisdiction upon this court

to act upon Appellant's post-appeal motions in the district court,

this court would be inclined to grant Appellant's motion for

reconsideration (doc. # 110). This court would conclude that, by

dismissing Appellant's first amended § 2255 motion (doc. # 63)

without prejudice subject to his right to file a second amended §

2255 motion, the latter motion would not constitute a second or

successive petition for purposes of the AEDPA.

DATED this 12th day of July, 2006.

Copies to counsel of record, Appellant/Petitioner pro se, and the

Clerk of the Court for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Case 3:00-cr-00872-RCB Document 111 Filed 07/14/06 Page 9 of 9