In re: Apperson
681 F.3d 1201
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Pickard and Apperson were convicted in the District of Kansas of conspiracy to manufacture LSD and possession with intent to distribute LSD.
- Gordon Skinner, an informant and criminal associate, was a key prosecution witness; defendants allege suppression of his background and other agencies’ involvement.
- Apperson and Pickard challenged the convictions under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States via §2255 motions, which the district court denied.
- The panel previously denied COAs to appeal the §2255 denial; the district court later characterized some new- evidence claims as second-or-successive under §2255.
- Defendants sought Rule 60(b) relief alleging prosecutorial misconduct and fraud in discovery related to FOIA-obtained records suggesting other agencies were involved.
- The district court transferred certain claims as second-or-successive habeas petitions but treated others as proper Rule 60(b) motions; the court remanded the Rule 60(b) issue to the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brady/Giglio claims are second-or-successive §2255 claims | Pickard/Apperson contend ongoing misconduct supports new §2255 relief. | United States argues those are new habeas petitions requiring authorization. | Brady/Giglio trial claims are second-or-successive; authorization denied. |
| Whether Rule 60(b) claim about fraud in §2255 proceedings is proper relief | Movants allege the prosecutor fraudulently hid agency involvement, blocking discovery. | Prosecution disputes fraud assertions; relief should be addressed as Rule 60(b). | Rule 60(b) claim proper; remanded to district court for resolution. |
| Whether district court correctly remanded the Rule 60(b) discovery issue for first-instance resolution | FOIA evidence could reveal discovery-blocking misconduct affecting §2255 claims. | Claim belongs in §2255 framework or on Rule 60(b) grounds; district court should decide. | Remand to district court for initial resolution of Rule 60(b) issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (distinguishes true Rule 60(b) from second-or-successive petitions)
- United States v. Nelson, 465 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2006) (applies Gonzalez analysis to § 2255 context)
- Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (discusses true Rule 60(b) vs. second-or-successive in habeas context)
- In re Lindsey, 582 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2009) (evidentiary-hearing failure as a merits-attack analogue in § 2255)
- Douglas v. Workman, 560 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2009) (prosecutor’s conduct and Brady claims in habeas proceedings)