Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

precedentappealmotion

motion

Related Cases

Bowser v. United States, 812 Fed.Appx. 675 (Mem)

Facts

Karon Dominique Bowser filed a motion for reconsideration after the district court denied his Rule 60(b) motion. The district court concluded that Bowser's motion was subject to the restrictions of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) because the evidence he presented regarding a Brady violation was not material. Bowser subsequently filed a new Rule 60(b) motion with the appellate court, asserting a different Brady challenge.

In lieu of an opening brief, Bowser filed an original Rule 60(b) motion with this court asserting a new Brady challenge.

Issue

Whether the district court properly denied Bowser's motion for reconsideration of its denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, and whether Bowser's new Brady challenge could be considered.

Rule

The court applied the principle that Brady claims, even those presenting material evidence, are subject to the second or successive gatekeeping requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).

This court subsequently held that Brady claims, even those that present material evidence, are subject to § 2255(h)’s second or successive gatekeeping requirement.

Analysis

The court analyzed Bowser's claims in light of the precedent set in Brown v. Muniz, which established that Brady claims are subject to the restrictions of § 2255(h). The court determined that Bowser's Brady challenge was effectively a second or successive motion, which the district court correctly denied. Additionally, the court found that Bowser's new Brady challenge filed in lieu of an opening brief was not appropriate for consideration at this stage.

In light of Brown, Bowser's Brady challenge, raised in his disguised second or successive § 2255 motion, is subject to § 2255(h), and the district court properly denied reconsideration.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's decision, denying Bowser's motion for reconsideration and his new Brady challenge. The court also denied Bowser's request to expand the certificate of appealability.

AFFIRMED.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case as the court upheld the district court's denial of Bowser's motions, affirming that the claims were subject to the restrictions of § 2255(h).

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570

People v. Decina, 2 N.Y.2d 133, 138 N.E.2d 799, 157 N.Y.S.2d 558, 63 A.L.R.2d 970

Dykes v. United States, 143 S.Ct. 189 (Mem), 214 L.Ed.2d 69

Commonwealth v. Ascolillo, 104 Mass.App.Ct. 1121, 241 N.E.3d 1236 (Table), 2024 WL 4142124

United States v. Hallock, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2018 WL 4110515