United States v. Gutierrez , 645 F. App'x 607 ( 2016 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 7, 2016
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 15-2120
(D.C. No. 2:09-CR-00760-RB-1)
FRANK L. GUTIERREZ, (D. N.M.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BACHARACH and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Frank L. Gutierrez was convicted in 2010 of possessing with intent to
distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. See United States v. Gutierrez,
498 F. App’x 786 (10th Cir. 2012) (affirming conviction). In March 2014, he filed a
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The
district court denied the motion in a final order from which Mr. Gutierrez did not
appeal. Some four months later, Mr. Gutierrez filed a “Motion to Enforce Order and
for Immediate Disclosure of Favorable Information,” in which he alleged the
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
prosecution had suppressed evidence involving police misconduct in violation of
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Noting that Mr. Gutierrez’s criminal
prosecution and § 2255 proceeding were both closed, the district court dismissed the
motion for lack of jurisdiction. The court specifically declined to treat it as a § 2255
motion, because it would be second or successive and had not been authorized
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) and 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Mr. Gutierrez then
commenced this appeal. We affirm.1
Mr. Gutierrez continues to disavow any reliance on § 2255 as a vehicle for his
Brady allegations. Rather, he insists he was seeking enforcement of a discovery
order issued in his original criminal prosecution, which he contends the district court
retained inherent authority to enforce through contempt. But he cites no authority
holding criminal discovery orders remain directly enforceable to vindicate Brady
claims after final termination of the underlying prosecution. Indeed, such a holding
would conflict with the exclusivity of the § 2255 remedy, which Mr. Gutierrez has
not shown to be “inadequate or ineffective” for presenting a post-conviction Brady
claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167, 1169
(10th Cir. 2011) (noting “§ 2255 will rarely be an inadequate or ineffective remedy”
1
The government contends we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the
district court lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Gutierrez’s motion. The government cites
no authority for this novel contention, which would deny our well-established
jurisdiction to review de novo questions regarding the district court’s jurisdiction,
see, e.g., United States v. Baker, 769 F.3d 1196, 1198 (10th Cir. 2014); Mires v.
United States, 466 F.3d 1208, 1209 (10th Cir. 2006). Of course, if we hold that the
district court lacked jurisdiction, we cannot reach the merits of the underlying matter
(here, Mr. Gutierrez’s Brady allegations), see Harline v. Drug Enforcement Admin.,
148 F.3d 1199, 1202 (10th Cir. 1998), and we do not purport to do so here.
2
and that prisoner bears the burden to demonstrate such circumstances); see also, e.g.,
Brown v. Berkebile, 572 F. App’x 605, 608 (10th Cir. 2014) (noting “allegation that
the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence and violated due process rights under
Brady” was claim that “plainly could have been brought under § 2255”), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 1012 (2015); United States v. Fuller, 421 F. App’x 642, 645 (7th Cir.
2011) (holding Brady claim could not be brought in motion for new trial “because it
constitutes a collateral attack on a conviction that must be brought in a motion under
28 U.S.C. § 2255”). Whether or not it is his intention, Mr. Gutierrez is attempting to
circumvent established procedures for asserting Brady claims after a conviction has
become final. As the district court indicated, the proper course would be to seek
authorization from this court to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, which
Mr. Gutierrez may of course still do.
The order of the district court is affirmed. We grant Mr. Gutierrez’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and remind him that he must continue making
partial payments until the entire filing fee is paid in full.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
3