Christopher Blitch v. United States, 39 F.4th 827

Blitch participated in an ATF “stash-house” sting; he was convicted (after retrial) on federal drug and firearms counts and sentenced to the statutory minimum 25 years.
He filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (2016) and later a motion to amend raising a Mathis-based challenge to a § 851 sentencing enhancement tied to a prior Illinois possession conviction.
The district court denied the § 2255 petition in October 2018 but did not resolve the motion to amend; Blitch did not appeal that denial.
In May 2020 Blitch filed a pro se motion to reopen under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), arguing the court overlooked his Mathis argument and that Mathis undermined the § 851 enhancement.
The district court treated the filing as an unauthorized successive § 2255 petition and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the court also denied reconsideration and denied Rule 60 relief as untimely.
The Seventh Circuit: construed the pro se Rule 60(b) as attacking a procedural defect (not solely the merits), so it was not treated as successive, but the motion actually alleged judicial mistake (Rule 60(b)(1)) and was filed more than one year after entry of judgment, so it was untimely and denial was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Blitch's Rule 60(b) motion is an impermissible successive habeas petition	Blitch argued he sought relief for a defect in the habeas proceeding (court failed to rule on his Mathis amendment), not a new merits attack	Government argued the motion advanced the same enhancement claim and therefore was a successive § 2255 in substance	Court held pro se status and the motion’s focus on a procedural defect meant it was not an unauthorized successive petition
Whether the Rule 60(b) motion was timely and properly characterized (b)(6) vs (b)(1)	Blitch styled the motion as Rule 60(b)(6) (catchall) and sought reopening based on failure to consider Mathis	Government contended the motion alleged judicial mistake/inadvertence—thus governed by Rule 60(b)(1) and the one-year limit	Court held the motion alleged judicial mistake (b)(1), so the one-year deadline applied; Blitch filed after one year and the motion was untimely, affirming denial

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b) treated as successive habeas when it attacks merits of prior ruling)
Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) (reconsideration that effectively is a merits challenge can be a successive application)
Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (elements vs. categorical approach for prior convictions)
Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) (Rule 60(b)(6) is a catchall and mutually exclusive of subsumed grounds)
Kemp v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1856 (2022) (Rule 60(b)(1) covers judicial mistakes of law)
Adams v. United States, 911 F.3d 397 (7th Cir. 2018) (district court must dismiss unauthorized successive § 2255 for lack of jurisdiction)