United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
WILLIAM W. CALDWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the court is defendant Corey Golson, Sr.'s motion
(Doc. 115) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
for relief from this court's denial of his motion (Doc.
107) to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. Because Defendant has failed to
demonstrate that relief should be granted under Rule 60(b),
the motion will be denied.
September 7, 2012, Defendant entered a conditional guilty
plea to a three-count indictment, reserving the right to
appeal a previous denial of his suppression motion. (Doc.
82). On January 24, 2013, this court sentenced Defendant to a
term of 161 months' imprisonment and three years of
supervised release. (Doc. 88). Shortly thereafter, he filed a
notice of appeal. (Docs. 89, 96). On February 11, 2014, the
Third Circuit affirmed this court's denial of
Defendant's suppression motion. (Docs. 105, 106).
Defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari to the
Supreme Court of the United States was denied on June 23,
2014. United States v. Golson, 743 F.3d 44 (3d
Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 2857 (2014) (mem.).
16, 2015, Defendant timely filed a motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 107). Defendant alleges that he filed
his 2255 motion in the Eastern District because, after
contacting the Clerk of Court for the Middle District, he was
erroneously sent Eastern District forms and instructions.
(Doc. 115 at 3; see also Doc. 107). On June 26,
2015, the Eastern District court properly transferred the
2255 motion to this court. (Doc. 108).
30, 2015, this court entered the standard administrative
order providing Defendant with “notice of limitations
on filing of future motions under 28 U.S.C. §
2255” (“Miller notice”). (Doc.
109). This order explained that an initial 2255 motion should
contain all grounds for relief, and requested that Defendant
inform the court whether he desired to withdraw the motion
without prejudice or have the motion ruled upon as filed.
(See Doc. 109); see also United States v.
Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 652 (3d Cir. 1999). Defendant was
given thirty days to respond to the administrative order.
(Doc. 109 at 3). On September 28, 2015, after waiting
approximately three months and having received no response
from Defendant, this court decided Defendant's 2255
motion as originally filed. (Doc. 110 at 2).
2255 motion raised four claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel. (Doc. 107 at 4-9). This court addressed the merits
of each claim, and denied relief. (Doc. 110 at 4-11; Doc.
111). A certificate of appealability was also denied. (Doc.
110 at 11; Doc. 111). Defendant timely sought a certificate
of appealability from the Third Circuit. (Doc. 112). On July
15, 2016, the Third Circuit denied Defendant's request
for a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 114).
eight months later, Defendant filed the instant Rule 60(b)
motion, seeking relief from the denial of his 2255 motion.
(Doc. 115). He alleges that he was misinformed by the clerk
of court regarding where to file his 2255 motion, was sent
Eastern District forms and instructions rather than Middle
District documents, did not receive a copy of the transfer
order issued by the Eastern District court, did not receive a
copy of the June 30, 2015 Miller notice issued by
this court, and was therefore unable to file his
“already prepared” legal brief and affidavit to
support his 2255 motion. (Id. at 2-8).
to Defendant, these procedural errors caused a “defect
in the integrity” of his 2255 motion proceedings,
(id. at 5, 8), thereby permitting consideration of
the instant Rule 60(b) motion. He contends that this court
could not “begin to know the Argument on the 
challenges, because the § 2255 Argument was missing from
the Application.” (Id. at 7). He also urges
the court not to construe the instant motion as a second or
successive 2255 motion because granting the Rule 60(b) motion
“merely reinstates the previously denied and dismissed
Habeas Application” and reopens the action “for
further proceedings.” (Id. at 6). He asserts
that although his Rule 60(b) motion “is undoubtedly a
step on the road to the ultimate objective of invalidating
the Judgment of conviction and sentence[, t]he Motion itself
does not seek that relief.” (Id.)
according to Defendant, this court has jurisdiction to
consider his Rule 60(b) motion. He requests that this court
grant relief and reopen the original 2255 motion proceedings
to allow him to file legal arguments and other supporting
documentation, upon which the court should make a fresh
determination regarding his initial habeas
the court must determine whether Defendant's instant Rule
60(b) motion is the type permitted under the federal habeas
constraints of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996 (AEDPA), or whether it must be construed as a
second or successive 2255 motion. This determination is
critical because if Defendant's Rule 60(b) motion is
simply a disguised second or successive 2255 motion, this
court does not have jurisdiction to entertain it.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244(b)(3)(A);
Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 412 (3d Cir. 2011)
the court finds that Defendant's Rule 60(b) motion is
proper, and is not a second or successive 2255 motion
requiring certification from the Third Circuit. Nevertheless,
the court also finds that Defendant's ...