Procedural default bars physician’s collateral challenge based on Ruan decision

A defendant physician could not obtain collateral relief from federal drug convictions based on the Supreme Court’s later decision in Ruan v. United States because the legal basis for the argument was reasonably available at the time of the guilty plea.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate his convictions under 28 U.S.C. §2255.

The defendant pleaded guilty to unlawfully distributing oxycodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1). Several years later, the Supreme Court decided Ruan v. United States, holding that §841’s scienter requirement obligates the government to prove that a physician knowingly acted in an unauthorized manner when prescribing controlled substances.

Relying on that decision, the defendant sought to vacate his convictions, arguing that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because he had not been advised of the mens rea standard clarified in Ruan. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied relief, concluding that the claim was procedurally defaulted because the defendant failed to raise it during the original criminal proceedings.

The 4th Circuit agreed. A defendant who fails to raise an issue on direct review may pursue it on collateral review only by showing cause and prejudice or demonstrating actual innocence. The defendant argued that the claim’s novelty established cause because Ruan had not yet been decided when he pleaded guilty.

The court rejected that argument, explaining that novelty requires more than the later announcement of a favorable Supreme Court ruling. Instead, the key inquiry is whether the legal basis for the claim was reasonably available at the time of the default.

Here, the court concluded that the argument was available. Three months before the defendant’s guilty plea, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, applying the presumption of scienter to interpret a criminal statute requiring knowledge of both conduct and status elements. According to the court, Rehaif supplied the analytical framework later applied in Ruan, providing defendants the essential legal tools to challenge §841’s mens rea requirement. The fact that other defendants were already advancing similar arguments further showed the claim was reasonably available.

Because the defendant failed to raise the issue earlier and did not establish cause or actual innocence, collateral relief was unavailable.

The 17 page opinion is U.S. v. Dimkpa, Lawyers Weekly No. 001-077-26.