FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 16, 2019
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 19-3042
(D.C. Nos. 6:18-CV-001175-EFM &
JOAL WILLIAM GOODWIN, 6:10-CR-10083-EFM-1)
(D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Joal William Goodwin, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of
appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack
of jurisdiction. We deny a COA and dismiss this matter.
In 2010, Mr. Goodwin pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He was sentenced as a career offender to 151 months’
imprisonment. He did not file a direct appeal. In 2011, Mr. Goodwin filed his first
§ 2255 motion in district court based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The district
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
court denied the motion, and we denied a COA. In 2016, this court granted Mr. Goodwin
authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion in district court to challenge
his career offender enhancement based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v.
United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The district court denied Mr. Goodwin’s
authorized § 2255 motion, and he did not appeal. On June 15, 2018, Mr. Goodwin filed
the underlying § 2255 motion in district court, seeking to reopen his original § 2255
proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court determined that
the motion was an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion and dismissed it for
lack of jurisdiction.
Mr. Goodwin now seeks a COA to appeal from that dismissal. “A [COA] may
issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Because the district court dismissed his
motion on procedural grounds, to obtain a COA Mr. Goodwin must demonstrate both
“that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the [motion] states a valid claim of
the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). We need not reach the constitutional component of this
standard since it is apparent Mr. Goodwin cannot meet his burden on the procedural one.
See id. at 485.
A prisoner may not file a second or successive § 2255 motion without
authorization from this court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); id. § 2255(h). The district
2
court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of a second or successive § 2255 motion
absent authorization. In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
In his motion filed in district court, Mr. Goodwin sought to reopen his original
§ 2255 proceedings, claiming trial counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge a prior
conviction as a predicate offense for the career offender enhancement, and in failing to
argue for a downward variance at sentencing. The district court determined that
Mr. Goodwin was “attempt[ing] to file a successive § 2255 motion as he clearly states
that he seeks to re-open his previous (2011) § 2255 motion,” R., Vol. III at 83. Because
Mr. Goodwin had not obtained the proper authorization from this court to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion, the district court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction
and denied a COA.
In his COA application to this court, Mr. Goodwin repeats the same merits
arguments he presented in district court. But he fails to address how the district court
erred in its procedural ruling that his motion was clearly a successive § 2255 motion.
Reasonable jurists could not debate that Mr. Goodwin’s motion is an unauthorized
second or successive § 2255 motion over which the district court lacked jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we deny a COA and dismiss this matter. Mr. Goodwin’s motion for
leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is also denied. We remind Mr. Goodwin of
his obligation to pay the full amount of the filing fee despite our denial of a COA and
3
dismissal of this appeal.
Entered for the Court
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
4