Earl Jackson v. C. Rivera, No. 17-1856 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Chief Judge, and Arnold and Benton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. Jackson's request for authorization to file a successive habeas is granted as he had made a prima facie showing that he no longer has the three qualifying convictions to support an Armed Career Criminal Act sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1856 ___________________________ Earl Jackson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. C. V. Rivera, (originally named as USA) lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena ____________ Submitted: October 4, 2017 Filed: October 31, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal prisoner Earl Jackson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his sentence, which was enhanced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)), based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2557 (2015). The district court denied the petition as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We construe Jackson’s notice of appeal as a request for authorization to file a successive section 2255 motion, and grant the request, as Jackson has made a prima facie showing that he no longer has three qualifying convictions to support an ACCA sentence. See Menteer v. United States, 806 F.3d 1156, 1156 (8th Cir. 2015) (this court may grant authorization only if applicant makes prima facie showing that he has met requirements of § 2255(h)); Woods v. United States, 805 F.3d 1152, 1153-54 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (prima facie showing is sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant further exploration by district court). While we express no views on whether any section 2255 motion filed by Jackson in the district court is timely filed or has merit, we note that he protectively filed a timely section 2255 motion raising claims based on Johnson in the District Court for the Western District of Missouri on June 26, 2016. ______________________________ -2-
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.
