Bailey v. Braxton, 3:12-cv-00537

Petitioner Donald Ray Bailey, Jr., a Virginia inmate, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging Norfolk Circuit Court convictions for first-degree murder, malicious wounding, and firearm offenses.
The district court denied Bailey's § 2254 petition on the merits, including denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, in a Memorandum Opinion entered September 12, 2013.
On October 31, 2016, Bailey filed a motion titled "Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief," seeking to revisit or raise new ineffective-assistance claims and to vacate aspects of the prior decision.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) requires that a second or successive habeas application receive prior authorization from the appropriate court of appeals before filing in district court.
The Fourth Circuit instructs that a Rule 60(b) motion which effectively attacks the conviction or raises new claims must be treated as a successive habeas petition and thus requires appellate authorization.
The district court construed Bailey’s Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition, dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, and denied a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bailey’s Rule 60(b) motion should be treated as a successive § 2254 petition	Bailey contends he sought only to vacate a procedural-default ruling and sought reconsideration under Rule 60(b)	The court (respondent) argues the motion raises or reargues ineffective-assistance claims and thus attacks the conviction	Court held the motion constituted an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether new ineffective-assistance claims can be raised via Rule 60(b) after merits denial	Bailey contends Rule 60(b) can address defects in collateral process	Respondent contends new claims or reargument of merits amount to a collateral attack requiring appellate authorization	Court held new legal arguments or reargued claims are successive habeas claims, not proper Rule 60(b) relief
Whether the court had jurisdiction to consider the motion absent Fourth Circuit authorization	Bailey argued procedural-relief was appropriate	Respondent relied on AEDPA gatekeeping requiring authorization	Court held it lacked jurisdiction without prior authorization and dismissed the motion
Whether a certificate of appealability should issue	Bailey presumably sought appellate review	Respondent opposed issuance	Court denied a certificate of appealability

Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (holding AEDPA imposes gatekeeping restrictions on second or successive federal habeas petitions)
Winestock v. United States, 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2003) (district courts must treat Rule 60(b) motions as successive habeas applications when they attack the conviction or raise new claims)
Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (discussing limits on postconviction motions that circumvent procedural bars)
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (Rule 60(b) motions that seek relief from the underlying judgment are to be treated as habeas applications)