govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_19-cr-00314-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
United States of America, 
 
   Plaintiff,    
  v.     ORDER 
Criminal No. 19-314 ADM/BRT 
John Sheldon Pickens,    Civil No. 23-1363 ADM 
                                     
   Defendant. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
John Sheldon Pickens, pro se. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on 
Defendant John Sheldon Pickens’ (“Pickens”) Motion to Vacate Judgment Pursuant to Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) [Docket No. 188].  Pickens requests relief from the judgment 
denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.  For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied. 
 In June 2021, a jury convicted Pickens of possessing at least five kilograms of cocaine in 
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A).  Verdict [Docket No. 90].  The Court 
sentenced him to a term of 138 months.  Sentencing J. [Docket No. 139].  The Eighth Circuit 
affirmed Pickens’ judgment of conviction.  United States v. Pickens, 58 F.4th 983 (8th Cir. 
2023).   
 In May 2023, Pickens filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 
U.S.C. § 2255 [Docket No. 164] (“2255 Motion”).  The Court denied Pickens’ § 2255 Motion, 
declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability, and entered judgment against him on March 22, 
2024.  See Mem. Op. Order [Docket No. 173]; Am. Judgment [Docket No. 175] (“March 2024 
Judgment”).   
 In April 2024, Pickens sought relief from the March 2024 Judgment by filing a Motion to 
Reconsider [Docket No. 176] and a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment under Federal Rule of 
CASE 0:19-cr-00314-ADM-BRT     Doc. 202     Filed 05/20/26     Page 1 of 3
 
2 
Civil Procedure 59(e) [Docket No. 178].  The Court denied both motions.  See Order [Docket 
No. 177]; Order [Docket No. 179]. 
 In July 2024, Pickens appealed the March 2024 Judgment to the Eighth Circuit.  See 
Notice Appeal [Docket No. 181].  Pickens argued that this Court’s analysis of his suppression 
claim was legally erroneous.  See Pickens v. United States, Appellate Case No. 24-2554, Entry 
ID 5457569 at 5-7.  The Eighth Circuit denied Pickens’ application for a certificate of 
appealability and dismissed the appeal.  See USCA J. [Docket No. 186].  
 Pickens then filed a motion to vacate the March 2024 Judgment pursuant to Rule 
60(b)(1).  Repeating arguments made in his § 2255 Motion and on appeal, Pickens argued that 
the Court committed legal error when analyzing his suppression claim.  See Mot. at 1; Mem. 
Supp. Mot. [Docket No. 189] at 4-5, 7-9.  The Court denied the Motion [Docket No. 191] and the 
Eighth Circuit dismissed his appeal [Docket No. 199].   
Pickens now files a second motion to vacate, arguing that he has evidence to support his 
position that the Court wrongly decided the suppression issue.  [Docket No. 200.]  He claims to 
have a document establishing that the tracking warrants for his cell phone were expired.  He asks 
the Court to vacate the March 2024 Judgment and grant a certificate of appealability on this 
issue.   
 When a defendant files a Rule 60(b) motion following the dismissal of a habeas petition, 
the district court should conduct a “brief initial inquiry to determine whether the allegations in 
the Rule 60(b) motion in fact amount to a second or successive collateral attack under either 28 
U.S.C. § 2255 or § 2254.”  Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir.2002).  A Rule 
60(b) motion constitutes a successive § 2255 motion if it raises issues that were or could have 
CASE 0:19-cr-00314-ADM-BRT     Doc. 202     Filed 05/20/26     Page 2 of 3
3 
 
been raised in the first § 2255 motion.  United States v. Matlock, 107 F. App’x 697, 698 (8th Cir. 
2004).  Conversely, a Rule 60(b) motion is not appropriately treated as a successive habeas 
petition if the Rule 60(b) motion attacks the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings 
themselves, as opposed to arguing the merits of a habeas claim.  Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 
524, 532 (2005).   
 Here, Pickens’ Motion raises issues that were raised in his first § 2255 proceedings.  The 
difference is that he now claims to have evidence supporting his contention that the tracking 
warrants were expired.  As noted in the Order dismissing his § 2255 Motion, however, the 
determination of admissibility was not dependent on validity of the tracking warrants.  See Mem. 
Op. Order [Docket No. 173].  As such, this Motion is another successive collateral attack under 
§ 2255.  As previously noted, Pickens may not file a second or successive § 2255 action without 
first obtaining authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.  See Boyd, 304 F.3d at 
814 (“[O]ur authorization [is] a prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) . . . to the filing of a 
second or successive habeas petition.”).  Because Pickens has not complied with the 
authorization requirement, the Motion is dismissed.  
 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant John Sheldon Pickens’ 
Motion to Vacate Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) [Docket No. 200] 
is DENIED.  No certificate of appealability shall issue.   
 
       BY THE COURT: 
 
        
       s/Ann D. Montgomery 
Dated: May 20, 2025     ANN D. MONTGOMERY 
       U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
CASE 0:19-cr-00314-ADM-BRT     Doc. 202     Filed 05/20/26     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight