Alford v. Cline, 696 F. App'x 871

Background

Brent L. Alford, a Kansas inmate convicted in 1993 of first-degree murder ("hard 40" life), aggravated kidnapping (life), and firearm possession (3–10 years), exhausted state direct appeal and multiple postconviction filings.
Alford filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in March 2011; the district court dismissed it as untimely under AEDPA because his conviction became final well before AEDPA's deadline and he failed to show entitlement to tolling or equitable relief.
In 2016 Alford filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion seeking to set aside the 2011 dismissal, asserting (1) state postconviction filings tolled AEDPA, (2) the 2011 order was void, and (3) state-court due-process defects (failure to rule on a motion to reconsider, void state appeal).
The district court characterized the filing as a "mixed" Rule 60(b) motion (some true Rule 60(b) challenges and some second-or-successive habeas claims), denied relief on Rule 60(b)(4) and (6) grounds for the true Rule 60(b) parts, and dismissed the second-or-successive claims for lack of jurisdiction without transferring for authorization.
Alford sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal denial of his Rule 60(b) motion; the Tenth Circuit concluded reasonable jurists could not debate the district court's rulings and denied the COA and dismissed the appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2011 habeas dismissal was void under Rule 60(b)(4) (lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process)	Alford argued the judgment was void because state proceedings tolled AEDPA and/or state errors deprived him of due process	District court had subject-matter jurisdiction and provided notice (show-cause order); Alford failed to raise tolling then	Court held the 2011 judgment was not void; Rule 60(b)(4) relief denied
Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief is available given delay	Alford sought equitable relief under Rule 60(b)(6) to reopen the judgment	District court: motion filed >5 years after dismissal, grounds existed earlier, Alford failed to justify delay so not filed within a reasonable time	Court held Rule 60(b)(6) relief untimely and denied
Whether portions of the motion asserted second-or-successive habeas claims and whether district court should transfer for authorization	Alford reasserted claims he could have raised earlier (state-court due-process and tolling)	District court lacked jurisdiction over second-or-successive claims and declined to transfer because not in interest of justice	Court held claims were second-or-successive; district court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and did not err in not transferring
Whether COA should issue for appeal of the Rule 60(b) order	Alford sought COA to appeal denial/dismissal	Respondent argued reasonable jurists could not debate correctness of district court's rulings	Court denied COA and dismissed appeal

Key Cases Cited

Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (framework for treating Rule 60(b) motions in habeas cases: true Rule 60(b) vs second-or-successive claims)
Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for certificate of appealability: whether reasonable jurists could debate the district court's resolution)
Fisher v. Gibson, 262 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2001) (AEDPA timeliness rules for convictions final before AEDPA enactment)
Buck v. United States, 281 F.3d 1336 (10th Cir. 2002) (judgment is void only for lack of jurisdiction or fundamental due process defects)
Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (10th Cir. 1994) (due process for void-judgment inquiry requires adequate notice and opportunity to be heard)
In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2008) (district court lacks jurisdiction over second-or-successive § 2254 claims absent circuit authorization and has discretion whether to transfer under § 1631)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (appellate deadlines are jurisdictional; untimely appeals cannot be entertained)