Reopening a Section 2255 Motion
Whenever someone asks me if it’s a good idea to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reopen their 2255 motion or other civil proceeding, I cringe. That’s because the district court has such broad discretion in granting or denying these motions. A quick look at appeals from Rule 60(b) denials convinces me that district courts seemingly have “immunity” whenever they deny those motions.
But not always. A district court abuses its discretion when it applies the correct law in an incorrect way. And that’s what happened when a state prisoner filed a Rule 60(b) motion in a federal district court to reopen his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, after a change in procedural law that had foreclosed his petition from being heard years ago changed.
In Bynoe v. Warden, No. 17-17012 (9th Cir. July 24, 2020), the Court held that when there is a “clear and authoritative” change in procedural law that prevented a habeas petitioner’s claims from ever being heard, a promptly-filed Rule 60(b) motion after that change in law can allow reopening of that civil case to apply new law. The district court had dismissed the motion, saying it was too late (by several years) and that the change in law wasn’t an “extraordinary circumstance.”
The Court considered the effects of reopening a long-ago closed habeas case, here over seven years ago, and concluded that finality and comity concerns were “minimal” in such a case, especially where the merits of the claims were never reached. “When a habeas petition is dismissed on flawed procedural grounds, there are no past effect of the judgment that would be disturbed if the habeas proceeding were reopened for further consideration,” the Court said. “The parties would simply pick up where they left off,” notwithstanding the several years since the habeas petition was denied.
Similar Posts:
Recommended for you
Ex Parte Communications By Judge With Jury Required Reversal Of Convictions
At Martin Bradley III’s trial for racketeering, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering, the district court had two ex parte communications with the jury. Bradley’s defense lawyers did not become aware of notes until after his appeal. Bradley filed a 2255 motion arguing, in addition to other things, that the court had violated Rule…
Supervised Release Cannot Be Revoked After Supervision Term Ends
Anthony Holman’s supervised release was revoked for failing to pay restitution and picking up a new charge. However, the violation petition was not submitted until after Holman’s term of supervision had already expired. No summons was pending at the time either. Generally, whenever a U.S. Probation Officer believes that a defendant has violated his or…
Burrage Applies Retroactively To Cases On Collateral Review
In Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014), the Supreme Court held that “at least where use of the drug distributed by the defendant is not an independently sufficient cause of the victim’s death or serious bodily injury, a defendant cannot be liable under the penalty enhancement provision of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C)…
