Fisher v. State of Oklahoma, 678 F. App'x 778

Rodney T. Fisher, an Oklahoma prisoner, was convicted of robbery by force after two prior felonies and previously litigated a § 2254 petition challenging that conviction.
In February 2016 Fisher filed a new § 2254 application claiming actual-innocence evidence (an affidavit from an alleged perpetrator); the district court dismissed it as an unauthorized second or successive petition for lack of jurisdiction.
This court denied Fisher authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, finding he failed to show due diligence in obtaining the new evidence.
Seven months later Fisher filed a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59/60 motion in the district court reiterating his actual-innocence claim and asserting diligence; the district court dismissed that motion as also equivalent to a successive § 2254 application and thus beyond its jurisdiction.
Fisher appealed the denial of the Rule 59/60 motion and sought a certificate of appealability (COA); the Tenth Circuit reviewed only the procedural jurisdictional issue (the Rule 59/60 motion) because the notice of appeal was timely only as to that denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction over Fisher’s Rule 59/60 motion	Fisher argued the Rule 59/60 motion presented new actual-innocence evidence and showed diligence, so it should be considered on the merits	The court (defendant side) argued the motion effectively sought relief from the underlying conviction and thus was an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 filing beyond the court’s jurisdiction	The motion was equivalent to a successive § 2254 application, Fisher lacked appellate authorization, and the district court lacked jurisdiction; COA denied
Whether jurists of reason could debate the procedural ruling such that a COA should issue	Fisher emphasized merits and diligence to show debatable procedural correctness	The court maintained the procedural bar was clear and dispositive; merits not reached	No reasonable jurist could debate the procedural ruling; COA denied

In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2008) (unauthorized successive § 2254 petitions deprive district court of jurisdiction)
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60 motions that attack the conviction substantively are equivalent to § 2254 applications)
Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (applying Gonzalez to determine when postjudgment motions are treated as successive habeas petitions)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standards for granting a certificate of appealability when dismissal is on procedural grounds)