Boyd v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 25 September 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-1848.,02-1848. |
| Citation | 304 F.3d 813 |
| Parties | Willie E. BOYD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
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.
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Kelley, s. 17-1892
...the matters and exercised its discretion to transfer them to this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) ; Boyd v. United States , 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).On April 26, 2017, Williams filed an application for a certificate of appealability, reiterating his argument that he ......
-
Gonzalez v. Secretary for Dept. of Corrections
...that all Rule 60(b) motions are SSHPs, but that have not articulated a rule for distinguishing these devices.19 See Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir.2002) (directing district courts to "conduct[] a brief initial inquiry to determine whether the allegations in the Rule 60(b)......
-
Barnett v. Roper
...from the Court of Appeals or, in its discretion, may transfer the purported Rule 60(b) motion to the Court of Appeals.” See Boyd, 304 F.3d at 814;Johnson v. United States, No. 4:06CV1363CAS, 2009 WL 3152984, at *2 (E.D.Mo. Sept. 24, 2009). “The Court has declined to interpret ‘second or suc......
-
Harris v. U.S.
...199 (2003), cert. denied sub nom. Dunlap v. Frank, 539 U.S. 962, 123 S.Ct. 2644, 156 L.Ed.2d 662 (2003); Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (directing district courts to conduct "a brief initial inquiry to determine whether the allegations in the Rule 60(b)......