Anthony Hill v. Ricardo Rios
722 F.3d 937
7th Cir.2013Background
- Anthony Hill filed a 2010 §2241 petition challenging his 1999 career-offender designation under Begay v. United States.
- Hill relied on Narvaez v. United States to argue a second or successive collateral attack was warranted, but this court previously held §2255(e) forecloses §2241 relief in such context.
- Hill did not seek rehearing or Supreme Court review of the 2011 decision; instead, he moved in district court under Rule 60(b) to reopen judgment.
- Hill claimed the appellate court erred by not recognizing that he had a pending or prior §2255 petition and thus that §2241 relief was appropriate.
- The district court denied Hill’s Rule 60(b) motion, prompting further appellate review.
- The Seventh Circuit ultimately affirmed denial, emphasizing finality and that Hill could have raised similar arguments earlier under §2255.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Rule 60(b) reopen post-judgment relief for arguments available earlier | Hill argues Rule 60(b) allows relief due to later authority. | Hill could have raised the arguments earlier under §2255; Rule 60(b) cannot be used to bypass finality. | No; Rule 60(b) cannot be used to relitigate issues that could have been raised earlier. |
| Proper vehicle for Narvaez-based relief when §2255 is unavailable | §2241 may be used to pursue Narvaez-type relief after §2255 limits access. | Finality and procedural rules bar such relief via Rule 60(b); Brown v. Caraway differs in procedural posture. | Court upheld that Hill cannot obtain relief via Rule 60(b) to pursue Narvaez-type arguments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (Rule 60(b) relief not available for after-the-fact legal developments)
- Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (U.S. 1950) (extraordinary circumstances required for Rule 60(b) relief)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (finality and collateral review importance)
- Premo v. Moore, 131 S. Ct. 733 (U.S. 2011) (finality considerations in collateral relief post-judgment)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (career-offender designation and its constitutional/statutory interpretation)
- Narvaez v. United States, 641 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2011) (discussion of §2255 vs. §2241 relief dynamics (amended 674 F.3d 621))