Aaron Doxie, III v. Jeffrey Dillman, No. 15-7304 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7304 AARON DOXIE, III, a/k/a Aharon Azaryah Nearyah Hakahan, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN JEFFREY N. DILLMAN; HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:13-cv-00505-AWA-DEM) Submitted: November 25, 2015 Decided: December 14, 2015 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Doxie, III, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Aaron Doxie, III, appeals from the district court’s order denying his self-styled motion to reopen his September 2013 petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012). We vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings. “[A] Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas proceeding that attacks ‘the substance of the federal court’s resolution of a claim on the merits’ successive is not habeas a true Rule 60(b) [application]” and motion, is but rather subject to a the preauthorization requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2012) for successive applications. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005)). By contrast, a “Rule 60(b) motion that challenges ‘some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings’ . . . is subject to Gonzalez, “‘presents the 545 a true Rule preauthorization U.S. claims at 531-32). subject to the 60(b) motion, requirement.” Where, and Id. however, requirements for is not (quoting a motion successive applications as well as claims cognizable under Rule 60(b),’” such a motion is a mixed Rule 60(b)/§ 2254 petition. Id. at 400 (quoting United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003)). 2 In his motion to perceived flaw in attack convictions on his his reopen, § 2254 Doxie sought proceeding and a and remedy raised sentences. a for direct Accordingly, motion was a mixed Rule 60(b)/§ 2254 petition. * a the McRae, 793 F.3d at 397, 400; see Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532 n.4 (holding that a movant files a true Rule 60(b) motion “when he . . . asserts that a previous ruling which precluded a merits determination was in error”); Winestock, 340 F.3d at 207 (stating that “a motion directly attacking the prisoner’s conviction or sentence will usually amount to a successive application”). The district court did not afford Doxie the opportunity to elect between deleting his successive § 2254 claim or having his entire motion treated as a successive § 2254 petition. See McRae, 793 F.3d at 400 (“This Court has made clear that ‘[w]hen [a] motion presents claims subject to the requirements for successive applications as well as claims cognizable under Rule 60(b), the district court should afford the applicant an opportunity to elect between deleting the improper claims or having the entire motion treated as a successive application.’” (quoting Winestock, 340 F.3d at 207)). * We therefore grant leave It is the “long standing practice” of this court to classify pro se pleadings from prisoners like Doxie “according to their contents, without regard to their captions.” Winestock, 340 F.3d at 203. 3 to proceed in forma pauperis, vacate the district court’s order, and remand for further proceedings. We deny Doxie’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
