Brooks v. Archuleta
702 F. App'x 778
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Brooks pleaded guilty in Colorado (2010) to securities fraud, received a 32-year sentence and agreed to ~$5M restitution.
- In 2014 Brooks filed a §2254 habeas petition (Brooks I); the district court dismissed/denied parts and the Tenth Circuit denied a COA in 2015.
- In 2015 Brooks discovered a state-law 1% monthly interest charge on unpaid restitution, raised a due-process claim in state post-conviction proceedings, and the state court denied relief in January 2016; Brooks did not appeal that denial.
- Brooks sought and was denied authorization from the Tenth Circuit to file a second/successive §2254 petition raising the breach-of-plea claim; the court noted the claim might be construed as a newly-arising objection but observed an anticipatory procedural bar to federal review if he returned to state court.
- Brooks filed a new habeas petition (Brooks II) asserting the breach claim; the district court ruled it was not second/successive but dismissed it on anticipatory procedural-bar grounds; the Tenth Circuit denied a COA.
- Brooks later filed Rule 60(b) motions: one in Brooks II (denied as not presenting extraordinary circumstances) and one in Brooks I (district court treated it as an unauthorized second/successive §2254 and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction). Brooks sought a COA from that dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brooks's Rule 60(b) in Brooks I was an unauthorized second/successive §2254 | Brooks argued the Rule 60(b) motion challenged the district court’s procedural rulings and was a proper Rule 60(b) motion, not a new habeas petition | The State argued the filing in substance sought relief from the underlying conviction and thus was a second/successive §2254 requiring appellate authorization | The court held the Rule 60(b) motion in Brooks I was in substance a second/successive §2254 and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether jurists of reason could debate the procedural ruling (COA standard) | Brooks contended the procedural characterization was debatable and sought COA | The State maintained reasonable jurists could not debate the correctness of treating the filing as second/successive | The court denied a COA, finding no debatable procedural error |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (distinguishes true Rule 60(b) motions from second or successive habeas petitions)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA standard when petition is dismissed on procedural grounds)
- Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (Rule 60(b) is successive when it asserts federal relief from underlying conviction)
- United States v. Nelson, 465 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing motions correcting errors in prior habeas proceedings from new successive petitions)
- In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2008) (district court lacks jurisdiction to address merits of unauthorized second/successive §2254)
- Frost v. Pryor, 749 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2014) (anticipatory procedural bar doctrine)