623 F. App'x 932
10th Cir.2015Background
- Johnny Brett Gregory is a federal prisoner convicted in 2006 in the Northern District of Georgia for methamphetamine distribution and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.
- Gregory filed a § 2241 petition in the District of Colorado challenging his conviction; the magistrate and district court concluded his claims attacked the conviction (so belonged under § 2255) and that he had not shown § 2255 was inadequate.
- The Tenth Circuit previously denied a certificate of appealability (COA), held the petition was a successive § 2255 attack, and noted Gregory must seek permission from the Eleventh Circuit for a successive § 2255.
- Gregory then moved under Rule 60(d)(3) to set aside the denial of habeas relief, alleging fraud on the court based on conflicting evidence about custody/destruction of the firearm; the district court denied that motion.
- Gregory later argued the district court lacked jurisdiction because he had filed a bankruptcy petition which automatically stayed proceedings; the district court rejected that argument and denied reconsideration.
- Gregory sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit to appeal the denial of his Rule 60(d)(3) motion and in forma pauperis status; the Tenth Circuit denied the COA, refused IFP status, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bankruptcy filing stayed the district court's ruling on Rule 60(d)(3) | Gregory: automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 prevented district court action | Court: § 362 does not apply because Gregory initiated the habeas action; stay covers actions against debtor, not those the debtor commenced | Denied COA — bankruptcy stay did not deprive court of jurisdiction |
| Whether Rule 60(d)(3) relief was warranted for fraud on the court based on conflicting gun custody evidence | Gregory: conflicting forfeiture records show fraud on the court warranting setting aside habeas denial | Court: no misrepresentation in habeas proceedings; custody status of gun irrelevant to whether § 2255 was inadequate | Denied COA — no reasonable jurists would debate that denial was abuse of discretion |
| Whether allegations effectively amount to a successive § 2255 collateral attack | Gregory: asserts fraud affecting conviction validity | Respondent/Court: such claims challenge conviction and thus are successive § 2255 matters requiring Eleventh Circuit authorization | Held: If framed as challenge to conviction, claim is successive § 2255 and requires Eleventh Circuit permission |
| Whether district judge should have recused for bias/violating stay | Gregory: alleged racial bias by magistrate and judge violated stay | Court: argument not raised earlier; unsupported allegations of bias insufficient | Not considered on appeal; no basis to find recusal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (COA standard)
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (fraud on the court doctrine)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (when Rule 60 motions are treated as successive § 2255 petitions)
- Weese v. Shukrani, 98 F.3d 542 (definition and examples of fraud on the court)
- In re Gindi, 642 F.3d 865 (scope of bankruptcy automatic stay)
- Davis v. Kansas Dep't of Corr., 507 F.3d 1246 (standard of review for denial of Rule 60 motions)