Background
Daniel Ochoa, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appealed the district court’s order denying his motion to correct plain errors challenging his convictions. He argued the district court abused its discretion by denying his request to reverse his convictions under Rule fifty-two, subsection b.
The court’s reasoning
The court explained that Rule fifty-two, subsection b provides a limited power to courts of appeals to correct forfeited errors, not district courts. The court noted that even if the motion were construed as a Rule thirty-three motion for a new trial, it was filed approximately nine years after conviction, far exceeding the three-year limit for new evidence or the fourteen-day limit for other grounds. Furthermore, if construed as a Section two thousand two hundred fifty-five motion, it would be second or successive because his initial motion had been denied on the merits. Since Ochoa had not received authorization from the court of appeals to file a successive motion, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider it.
What it means going forward
Federal prisoners cannot use Rule fifty-two, subsection b in district court to challenge convictions, and motions filed years after conviction or without appellate authorization for successive habeas petitions will be dismissed.