United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. SIPPEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on a motion filed by movant
Terrick Alfred Williams that has been construed as a motion
to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255. The motion is successive, and movant has
not received authorization from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3). Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, the
Court will summarily deny and dismiss the motion without
October 10, 1996, a jury convicted movant of two counts of
carjacking, two counts of being a felon in possession of a
firearm, and two counts of using a firearm during a crime of
violence. United States v. Williams, No.
4:96-cr-187-RWS-1 (E.D. Mo.). On January 8, 1997, movant was
sentenced to an aggregate term of 450 months'
imprisonment. He filed a notice of appeal on January 17,
1997. Thereafter, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence.
United States v. Williams, 136 F.3d 547, 549
(8th Cir. 1998).
filed his first motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on March 3, 2000.
Williams v. United States, 4:00-cv-386-RWS (E.D.
Mo.). On January 21, 2005, the Court denied movant's
amended § 2255 motion. However, the Court did issue a
certificate of appealability on Ground 1. Movant filed a
notice of appeal. On June 27, 2006, the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed the Court's denial of movant's
§ 2255 motion. Williams v. United States, 452
F.3d 1009, 1010 (8th Cir. 2006).
filed a second § 2255 motion on January 8, 2016, seeking
relief under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct.
2551 (2015). Williams v. United States, No.
4:16-cv-33-RWS (E.D. Mo.). The Court determined that
movant's motion was a second or successive motion, and
that movant had not received certification from the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, on January 12, 2016, the
Court denied movant's motion. However, the Court
transferred the matter to the Eighth Circuit because movant
had stated a tenable claim under Johnson. On October
13, 2016, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied
movant's petition for authorization to file a successive
§ 2255 motion. Williams v. United States, No.
16-1153 (8th Cir. 2016).
filed a third § 2255 motion on June 24, 2016, which also
sought relief under Johnson. Williams v. United
States, No. 4:16-cv-989-RWS (E.D. Mo.). The Court denied
the motion on July 12, 2016. In so doing, the Court noted
that movant's motion was successive, and that he had not
obtained authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals to file a successive motion. On September 6, 2018,
the Eighth Circuit denied movant's petition for
authorization to file a successive habeas application.
Williams v. United States, No. 18-2062
(8th Cir. 2018). The Eighth Circuit denied another
petition for authorization to file a successive § 2255
motion on December 10, 2018. Williams v. United
States, No. 18-2854 (8th Cir. 2018).
filed the instant motion on July 8, 2019. (Docket No. 1). In
the motion, movant seeks to have his sentences vacated
pursuant to the Supreme Court's ruling in Davis v.
United States, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019), which determined
that the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) was
unconstitutional. The Court construed movant's motion as
a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the
United States District Courts provides that a district court
shall dismiss a § 2255 motion if “it plainly
appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the
record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not
entitled to relief.” Here, it plainly appears that
movant is not entitled to relief because he has filed prior
§ 2255 motions, making the instant motion successive.
district court is not “required to entertain an
application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the
detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of
the United States if it appears that the legality of such
detention has been determined…on a prior application
for a writ of habeas corpus.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a).
Rather, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996, a federal inmate seeking relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 must first receive certification from the court
of appeals to file a second or successive motion. United
States v. Brown, 915 F.3d 1200, 1201 (8th
Cir. 2019). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)
(“Before a second or successive application permitted
by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant
shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider the
inmate cannot evade this rule “by simply filing a
successive § 2255 motion in the district court.”
Baranski v. United States, 880 F.3d 951, 955
(8th Cir. 2018). See also Boyd v. United
States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002)
(stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals is a “prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3)…to the filing of a second or successive
habeas petition”). Instead, it is up to the court of
appeals to determine whether movant has made a prima facie
case that he has satisfied the requirements of § 2255.
See Woods v. United States, 805 F.3d 1152, 1153
(8th Cir. 2015).
noted above, movant has filed three prior motions pursuant to
§ 2255. The first was denied on the merits; the second
and third were both denied as successive. Therefore, the
instant motion is also successive. Movant has not sought
certification from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to
bring the motion in this Court. Absent certification, the
Court lacks authority under § 2255 to grant ...