Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01145/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01145-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Johnny Scott Warren
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

JOHNNY SCOTT WARREN,

Movant.

No. 15-1145

(D.C. No. 1:07-CR-00354-CMA-1)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER

Before KELLY, HOLMES, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

Johnny Scott Warren is a federal prisoner appearing pro se. He has filed a 

motion seeking, for the fourth time, this court’s certification under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255(h) to file a second or successive § 2255 motion attacking his sentence. 

Because Mr. Warren again fails to make the required showing, we deny certification. 

In addition, we direct Mr. Warren to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for 

continuing to file motions for authorization that do not meet the statutory standards.

I. Background

Mr. Warren was convicted in May 2008 on federal drug and firearm charges 

and sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. He had moved to suppress the evidence 

seized at his home during a search led by his state parole officer, arguing that the 

warrantless search was unconstitutional because one of the police officers assisting

his parole officer performed his own search. See United States v. Warren, 566 F.3d 

1211, 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2009). The district court denied his motion to suppress, 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 29, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1145 Document: 01019422936 Date Filed: 04/29/2015 Page: 1 Appellate Case: 15-1145 Document: 01019449581 Date Filed: 04/29/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 -

and we affirmed his conviction on direct appeal under the special-needs exception to 

the Fourth Amendment’s warrant and probable-cause requirements. Id. at 1214-18. 

The district court also denied Mr. Warren’s May 2010 motion attacking his 

sentence under § 2255, in which he argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction 

over the trial because there was no indictment, and that his trial counsel provided 

ineffective assistance in failing to investigate and challenge the court’s jurisdiction. 

The district court denied relief, explaining that the first document in the record was 

the grand jury’s indictment, so Mr. Warren’s arguments were without merit. 

Mr. Warren sought to appeal the denial of § 2255 relief, but we denied him a 

certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal. United States v. Warren, 

393 F. App’x 567, 568 (10th Cir. 2010) (No. 10-1269). Mr. Warren has continued to 

file motions in the district court and this court to challenge the search of his 

residence.

II. Legal Standard for Certification and Analysis

To obtain our authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, a 

prisoner’s proposed claim(s) must rely on either—

(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.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1) & (2). 

Appellate Case: 15-1145 Document: 01019422936 Date Filed: 04/29/2015 Page: 2 Appellate Case: 15-1145 Document: 01019449581 Date Filed: 04/29/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 -

Mr. Warren filed three prior motions in this court for authorization to file a 

second or successive § 2255 application, in December 2010, January 2015, and 

February 2015. In each motion, he sought to challenge the warrantless search of his 

residence. And in denying each motion, we determined that his proposed claims did 

not satisfy the standards in § 2255(h) for authorizing a second or successive § 2255 

motion to be filed. See In re Warren, No. 15-1066, slip op. at 2 (10th Cir. Mar. 13, 

2015) (unpublished order); In re Warren, No. 15-1012, slip op. at 1-2 (10th Cir. 

Jan. 20, 2015) (unpublished order); In re Warren, No. 10-1561, slip op. at 2-3

(10th Cir. Jan. 7, 2011) (unpublished order). In the most recent denial, we also 

cautioned Mr. Warren that he might be sanctioned if he made “further attempts to 

obtain authorization without meeting the requirements in § 2255(h).” In re Warren, 

No. 15-1066, slip op. at 2 (10th Cir. Mar. 13, 2015) (unpublished order).

The proposed claim in Mr. Warren’s current motion is that “[t]his Circuit 

Court has reached a legal conclusion in a proceeding that is plainly erroneous” and 

that he “is factually innocent.” Mot. for Authorization at 8. He asserts that this 

claim contains newly discovered evidence under § 2255(h)(1) based on United States 

v. Mabry, 728 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1354 (2014), 

where, he says, we “reference[d] his warrantless parole search as a totality of the 

circumstances exception, when [in] fact this court previously denied Petitioner 

Warren’s direct appeal under the special need exception.” Mot. for Authorization

at 9. 

Appellate Case: 15-1145 Document: 01019422936 Date Filed: 04/29/2015 Page: 3 Appellate Case: 15-1145 Document: 01019449581 Date Filed: 04/29/2015 Page: 3 
- 4 -

Mr. Warren misreads Mabry, where we pointed out that there exists a 

totality-of-the-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement for a search, citing 

our decision in his direct appeal. See Mabry, 728 F.3d at 1166 & n.2. Our reference 

to Mr. Warren’s direct appeal in Mabry is neither new evidence nor a new, 

retroactive rule of constitutional law, and his motion for authorization does not meet 

the standards for certification in § 2255(h).

Mr. Warren’s motion for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 

motion is denied, and this proceeding is terminated. In accordance with 

§ 2244(b)(3)(E), this denial of authorization “shall not be appealable and shall not be 

the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.” 

III. Sanctions

Mr. Warren is ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for 

continuing to file motions for authorization that do not meet the statutory standards. 

The sanction we intend to impose is that any further motions for authorization related 

to his 2008 federal conviction will be deemed denied on the thirtieth day without a 

court order, unless this court orders otherwise. See Berryhill v. Evans, 466 F.3d 934, 

936 (10th Cir. 2006). Mr. Warren’s response to this show-cause order shall be filed 

within twenty-one days of the date of this order.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-1145 Document: 01019422936 Date Filed: 04/29/2015 Page: 4 Appellate Case: 15-1145 Document: 01019449581 Date Filed: 04/29/2015 Page: 4