Henry A. Thomas v. State of Florida, 706 F. App'x 653

Henry A. Thomas, a Florida prisoner serving 25 years for grand theft and related conspiracy convictions, filed a pro se Rule 60(b) and (d) motion seeking relief from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition.
The district court treated Thomas’s Rule 60 motion as a second or successive habeas petition and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction because Thomas had not obtained authorization from the court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
Thomas argued his convictions were void for lack of jurisdiction because an information was never filed; he framed his motion as alleging fraud on the habeas court under Rule 60(b)(3) and (d)(3).
The district court and the Eleventh Circuit had previously considered and rejected Thomas’s jurisdictional claim on the merits in earlier habeas proceedings.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo and applied Supreme Court and circuit precedent distinguishing true Rule 60 challenges to the integrity of habeas proceedings from disguised successive habeas petitions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Rule 60 motion is a successive § 2254 petition	Thomas claimed fraud and sought relief under Rule 60(b)(3) and (d)(3) alleging defects in proceedings	District court argued motion actually attacked merits of prior habeas denial and was therefore successive and unauthorized	Motion was an impermissible successive § 2254 petition and district court lacked jurisdiction
Whether Rule 60 can be used to relitigate previously adjudicated habeas claims	Thomas sought reconsideration of jurisdictional defect (no information filed) as fraud on the court	Court held that relitigation of merits claims is not a valid Rule 60 avenue; it must be treated as successive habeas	Relitigation of merits through Rule 60 is barred; treated as successive petition
Whether an attack on habeas counsel’s omissions is a challenge to integrity of proceedings	Thomas implied counsel’s failures undermined proceedings	Court explained omissions ordinarily seek reconsideration on the merits, not integrity, when earlier claims were adjudicated	Counsel omission claim did not show defect in integrity; skeptical scrutiny applies
Jurisdictional consequence of failing to obtain court-of-appeals authorization	Thomas did not obtain authorization to file a successive petition	Respondent contended authorization required under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)	Without authorization, district court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal was proper

Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard for reviewing jurisdictional issues and treatment of Rule 60 motions)
Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2003) (district court lacks jurisdiction over successive habeas petition without court-of-appeals authorization)
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (distinguishing Rule 60 motions that attack the integrity of the habeas proceeding from those that are successive habeas petitions)
Franqui v. Florida, 638 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2011) (Rule 60 motions challenging merits determinations are to be viewed with skepticism and often constitute successive petitions)

AFFIRMED.