304 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 2002)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boyd v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Sep 25, 2002

304 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 2002)

Summary

holding that if the district court determines Rule 60(b) motion is actually a second or successive habeas petition, it should dismiss the motion for failure to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals or, in its discretion, transfer the purported Rule 60(b) motion to the Court of Appeals

Summary of this case from Rouse v. United States

See 25 Summaries

Opinion

No. 02-1848.

Submitted: July 9, 2002.

Filed: September 25, 2002. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied: November 12, 2002.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Stephen N. Limbaugh, J.

Willie E. Boyd, pro se.

Mary Jane Lyle, argued, Asst. U.S. Attorney, St. Louis, MO, for appellee.

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Willie Boyd's petition for panel rehearing having been granted, we return the matter to the District Court with directions to file and then dismiss Mr. Boyd's motion under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it is, on its face, a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition, see Mathenia v. Delo, 99 F.3d 1476, 1480 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, Mathenia v. Bowersox, 521 U.S. 1123, 117 S.Ct. 2518, 138 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1997), that we have not previously authorized and do not now authorize, our authorization being a prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2000) to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition.

In order to establish a uniform procedure throughout the Circuit, we encourage district courts, in dealing with purported Rule 60(b) motions following the dismissal of habeas petitions, to employ a procedure whereby the district court files the purported Rule 60(b) motion and then conducts 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. If the district court determines the Rule 60(b) motion is actually a second or successive habeas petition, the district court should dismiss it for failure to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals or, in its discretion, may transfer the purported Rule 60(b) motion to the Court of Appeals. Depending on which course of action the district court chooses, the petitioner may either appeal the dismissal of the purported Rule 60(b) motion or, if the district court has elected to transfer the purported 60(b) motion to the Court of Appeals, await the action of the Court of Appeals.

Summaries of

Boyd v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Sep 25, 2002

304 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 2002)

Summary of this case from Rouse v. United States

holding that the district court is to dismiss unauthorized successive § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from United States v. Powers

holding if a petitioner's motion is a second or successive habeas petition, the court must dismiss it or transfer the motion to the Court of Appeals

Summary of this case from United States v. Livingstone

denying a movant's second or successive § 2255 motion because he failed to obtain authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals prior to filing his second or successive § 2255 motion

Summary of this case from United States v. Jackson

directing district courts to 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" in which case the motion should be denied as barred or transferred to the Court of Appeals for certification

Summary of this case from Harris v. U.S.

requiring that Rule 60(b) motion be treated as successive application

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Winestock

stating that a district court should dismiss a second or successive habeas petition for failure to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals

Summary of this case from Afiz v. Buckner

stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is a "prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) . . . to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Afiz v. Buckner

stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is a "prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) . . . to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Taylor v. Stange

stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is a "prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)...to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Mayes v. Lewis

stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is a "prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)...to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Barr v. Ramey

stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is a "prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)...to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Shaw v. Kahl

explaining that, if a Rule 60(b) motion is actually a successive habeas petition, the court should dismiss it for failure to obtain authorization from the court of appeals or, in its discretion, transfer the motion to the court of appeals

Summary of this case from United States v. Allen

instructing district courts to make that determination first

Summary of this case from United States v. Williams

stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is a "prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)...to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Bateman v. Mesmer

stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is a "prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) . . . to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Tyler v. Ramey

stating that a district court should dismiss a second or successive habeas petition for failure to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Stange

stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is a "prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) . . . to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Stange

stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is a "prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)...to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Money v. United States

stating that a district court should dismiss a second or successive habeas petition for failure to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals

Summary of this case from Hamilton v. Jennings

stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is a "prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) ... to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Hamilton v. Jennings

remanding movant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to the district court for dismissal, "because it is, on its face, a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition"

Summary of this case from Flenoid v. United States

stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is a "prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)...to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Flenoid v. United States

stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is a "prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)...to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Glover v. United States

stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is a "prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)...to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Mayes v. Lewis

Boyd v. U.S.

Summary

Opinion

Boyd v. U.S.

Boyd v. U.S.

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Boyd v. U.S.

Summary

Opinion

Boyd v. U.S.

Boyd v. U.S.

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations