United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division
QUINCY B. JONES, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Russ Walker, United States Magistrate Judge.
Quincy B. Jones is before the court on a pro se
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or
correct sentence. Doc. No. 1.
September 19, 2011, in No. 1:11cr4-WKW, Jones pled guilty to
conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base
and cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) & 846. On September 6, 2012, in
No. 2:12cr156-WKW, Jones pled guilty to using a telephone
with intent to commit a murder-for-hire, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1958(a). The latter charge arose out of
Jones's attempt to arrange the murder of a witness
connected to his drug conspiracy case. Sentencing in the two
cases was consolidated and a sentencing hearing was held on
November 1, 2012. The district court sentenced Jones to 200
months in prison on the drug conspiracy conviction, to run
concurrently with a 120-month sentence imposed for the
conviction for using a telephone with intent to commit a
murder-for-hire. Jones took no direct appeal.
instant § 2255 motion, filed on November 26, 2018, Jones
asserts claims of ineffective assistance of counsel against
the lawyer who represented him at his November 1, 2012
sentencing. Doc. No. 1 at 4-7. For the reasons that follow,
the Magistrate Judge finds that Jones's § 2255
motion should be dismissed as a successive motion filed
without the required appellate court authorization.
has previously filed separate § 2255 motions challenging
his convictions and/or sentence in No. 1:11cr4-WKW (the drug
conspiracy case) and No. 2:12cr156-WKW (the intent to commit
a murder-for-hire case). Both of these prior § 2255
motions were filed on October 23, 2013. These § 2255
motions were docketed as Civil Action No. 1:13cv801-WKW (the
drug conspiracy case) and Civil Action No. 2:13cv803-WKW (the
intent to commit a murder-for-hire case). On December 23,
2015, this court entered a final judgment denying Jones's
§ 2255 motion with prejudice in Civil Action No.
1:13cv801-WKW,  and on December 10, 2015, this court
entered a final judgment denying Jones's § 2255
motion with prejudice in Civil Action No.
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).
bar on second or successive motions is jurisdictional.”
In re Morgan, 717 F.3d 1186, 1193 (11th Cir. 2013).
A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a
successive § 2255 motion where the movant fails to
obtain the requisite permission from the appellate court to
file a successive motion. Farris v. United States,
333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003). Jones presents no
evidence of his having obtained authorization from the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive §
2255 motion. Because Jones has not obtained the required
authorization from the appellate court, this court lacks
jurisdiction to consider the merits of his present §
2255 motion and the motion is due to be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. See, e.g., Farris, 333 F.3d at 1216;
Boone v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections, 377 F.3d
1315, 1317 (11th Cir. 2004).
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that
Jones's successive § 2255 motion (Doc. No. 1) be
summarily dismissed because Jones has not received permission
from the appellate court to file a second or second §
that the parties shall file any objections to this
Recommendation or before April 16, 2019. A party must
specifically identify the factual findings and legal
conclusions 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 findings and recommendations under the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) will bar a party
from a de novo determination by the District Court
of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and
waives the right of the party to challenge on appeal the
District Court's order based on unobjected to factual and
legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court