United States v. Eaton ( 2013 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 23, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-6106
v. (D.C. No. 5:98-CR-00183-R-1)
WILLIAM GENE EATON, (W.D. Oklahoma)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER
Before HARTZ, O’BRIEN, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Defendant William Gene Eaton appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Because his motion must be treated as a
successive motion for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, we vacate the district
court’s order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, construe Defendant’s notice
of appeal and appellate brief as an application for authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, and deny authorization.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 24, 1999, Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment by the
United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma after being
convicted of bank robberies and related crimes. The convictions and sentence
were affirmed on appeal. Defendant filed his first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in
July 2000, arguing that his counsel was ineffective for various reasons, including
that he failed to seek dismissal of the charges on the ground that the indictment
was untimely filed. The district court denied that motion, ruling, among other
things, that the indictment was timely. This court denied a certificate of
appealability. In March 2005 Defendant filed his second § 2255 motion, which
the district court treated as an application for authorization to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion and transferred to this court. We denied authorization.
Since then, Defendant has filed numerous motions in district court seeking
postconviction relief, none of which has been successful in district court or this
court.
This appeal concerns Defendant’s April 8, 2013, motion under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b). The motion argues that the district court lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction to convict him because he was untimely indicted. The district court
denied the motion because it merely reiterated a prior Rule 60(b) motion that had
been denied.
II. DISCUSSION
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a
prisoner cannot file a “second or successive” motion under § 2255 unless it is
“certified . . . by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain—(1) newly
discovered evidence . . . or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
-2-
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
The Supreme Court has explained that a Rule 60(b) motion should be
construed as a successive habeas petition if it (1) “seeks to add a new ground for
relief,” or (2) “attacks the federal court’s previous resolution of a [habeas] claim
on the merits.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005). But a Rule 60(b)
motion is not a successive petition if it attacks “some defect in the integrity of the
federal habeas proceedings.” Id. Although Gonzalez dealt with § 2254
applications for relief, we have applied its analysis to § 2255 motions. See
United States v. Nelson, 465 F.3d 1145, 1147 (10th Cir. 2006).
Because Defendant proceeded pro se, we construe his motion liberally. See
id. at 1148. The motion does not challenge the integrity of the habeas
proceeding. Rather, it attacks the district court’s prior resolution of a habeas
claim on the merits. It therefore constitutes a successive § 2255 motion and the
district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. See id. at 1149. Accordingly, we
vacate the order below. See id.
We may, however, treat Defendant’s notice of appeal and appellate brief as
an application to file a successive § 2255 motion. See id. But because he has
alleged neither newly discovered evidence nor a new rule of law that applies
retroactively, we deny the application.
-3-
III. CONCLUSION
We VACATE the district court’s order for lack of jurisdiction. We DENY
Defendant’s application for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion and
his motion to amend.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-4-