In Randolph v. United States, No. 17-10620 (Sept. 25, 2018) (Ed Carnes, Branch, Gayles), the Court affirmed the dismissal of a successive 2255 motion based on Johnson.
The Court ruled that dismissal was required under 2244(b)(1) because the movant raised a Johnson claim in his initial 2255 motion. That also meant that the rule announced in Johnson was not "previously unavailable" to him, a requirement for successive motions. That was so even though his first 2255 motion was filed before the Supreme Court declared Johnson retroactive in Welch. The Court also ruled that, in the successive proceeding, the movant could not use Welch to challenge the correctness of the dismissal of his initial 2255 motion on procedural-default grounds. Lastly, the Court rejected the movant's argument that it owed deference to its order authorizing the successive 2255 motion.