Ronald Johnson v. United States

This case concerns the narrow gatekeeping role Congress assigned to the courts of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C). At that stage, the question is not whether the applicant has already won on the merits, but whether he has made the required prima facie showing to permit district-court review. The court below departed from that limited function. It denied authorization by treating the cited authorities as “previously available” or “non constitutional,” even though the application alleged a serious constitutional defect going to the validity of the conviction itself. The application did not raise a minor pleading dispute or a purely statutory disagreement. It alleged a Fifth and Sixth Amendment violation at the point where federal criminal liability attached: the jury was permitted to convict without deciding the facts necessary to determine whether petitioner’s conduct fell within federal drug law, and the instructions allowed conviction on a theory broader than the one charged by the grand jury. Those allegations were more than sufficient to satisfy the threshold screening standard and required the court of appeals to allow the claim to proceed. With this introduction, the following question is presented: Whether the court of appeals exceeded the limited prima facie screening function prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(c) when it denied authorization for a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion after labeling the cited authorities “previously available” or “non constitutional,” even though the application alleged a substantial fifth and sixth amendment defect: that the jury was allowed to convict without finding the facts necessary to place petitioner’s conduct within federal drug law and on a theory broader than the one returned by the grand jury. n