Brooks v. Archuleta
702 F. App'x 790
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2010 Brooks pleaded guilty in Colorado to securities fraud and received a 32‑year sentence plus over $5 million restitution.
- Brooks filed a § 2254 habeas petition in 2014; the district court dismissed/denied parts and this court denied a COA (Brooks I).
- In 2015 a state clerk notified Brooks that unpaid restitution accrued 1% monthly interest; Brooks filed state post‑conviction motions (Rule 35), which the trial court denied as untimely/procedurally barred; he did not timely appeal that denial.
- Brooks filed a second federal habeas in 2016 challenging the interest charge as a plea‑breach/due‑process violation; the district court dismissed it as unexhausted and procedurally barred, and this court denied a COA (Brooks II).
- Brooks then filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion in district court arguing the court misapplied exhaustion and § 2254(e)(1); the district court treated it as a “true” Rule 60(b) motion, denied relief for lack of extraordinary circumstances, and denied reconsideration.
- On appeal Brooks sought a COA to challenge denial of his Rule 60(b) motion and in forma pauperis status; the Tenth Circuit denied the COA, dismissed the appeal, and denied IFP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 60(b) filing is a “true” Rule 60(b) motion or a second/successive habeas petition | Brooks: the district court misread state‑court findings and wrongly dismissed his § 2254 petition as procedurally barred; thus the filing is a true Rule 60(b) challenge to a procedural ruling | Respondent/District Court: the motion challenged the court’s procedural ruling about exhaustion, so it qualifies as a true Rule 60(b) motion under Spitznas | Court: Motion is a true Rule 60(b) motion challenging a procedural ruling, so COA is required to appeal |
| Whether Brooks showed extraordinary circumstances to reopen judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) | Brooks: district court ignored § 2254(e)(1) presumption of state‑court factual findings and mischaracterized its own reasoning | District Court: Brooks misreads the order; the court did not refuse to defer to state findings and Brooks failed to show extraordinary circumstances | Court: No reasonable jurist could debate denial; Brooks failed to show extraordinary circumstances; Rule 60(b) relief denied |
| Whether a COA should issue for appeal of the Rule 60(b) denial | Brooks: his arguments raise debatable legal issues and factual misreadings warrant review | Court/Respondent: Brooks’ arguments are premised on mischaracterizations and are not sufficiently substantial or debatable | Court: COA denied because Brooks did not make a substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right |
| Whether Brooks may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal | Brooks: claims IFP due to indigence | Court: even if indigent, must present nonfrivolous, reasoned argument on appeal | Court: IFP denied because Brooks did not present a nonfrivolous argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes true Rule 60(b) motions from second or successive habeas petitions)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (requires extraordinary circumstances for Rule 60(b)(6) relief in habeas context)
- Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950) (principles governing extraordinary relief under Rule 60(b))
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572 (10th Cir. 1996) (clarifies extraordinary‑circumstances standard for Rule 60(b))
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) (discusses finality interests relevant to Rule 60(b))
- Watkins v. Leyba, 543 F.3d 624 (10th Cir. 2008) (standards for proceeding in forma pauperis on appeal)
- Frost v. Pryor, 749 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2014) (anticipatory procedural bar doctrine referenced regarding exhaustion)