Keelan v. United States, 1:17-cv-20158

Keelan, a former teacher, was convicted in 2013 of using interstate means to persuade a 15-year-old student (J.S.) to engage in sexual activity and sentenced to 200 months. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction on direct appeal.
Keelan filed a § 2255 habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, Brady violations, and prosecutorial misconduct; the district court denied relief and the Eleventh Circuit denied a certificate of appealability.
Keelan sought district-court permission to file a successive § 2255 and appointment of counsel; the district court explained only the Eleventh Circuit can authorize a successive § 2255 under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A).
Keelan then filed a motion styled as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) petition alleging fraud on the court (claims that witnesses and prosecutors lied, suppressed evidence, and that counsel colluded or was ineffective) aiming to evade § 2255 procedural bars and time limits.
The Government argued the Rule 60 motion in substance attacks the merits of the conviction and should be treated as a successive § 2255, for which Eleventh Circuit authorization is required.
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the Rule 60(d)(3) filing actually asserts merits-based habeas claims (including claims previously raised) and that Keelan’s allegations do not meet the “fraud on the court” standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper characterization of Keelan's Rule 60(d)(3) filing	Keelan: styled as Rule 60(d)(3) seeking to set aside judgment for fraud on the court to avoid § 2255 time/successive limits	Gov: the filing attacks the conviction’s merits and thus is a successive § 2255 petition	Court: Motion is an improperly labeled successive § 2255; treat as habeas, not Rule 60(d)(3)
Sufficiency of fraud-on-the-court allegations	Keelan: prosecutors, family, and counsel conspired, perjured themselves, and suppressed evidence	Gov: allegations are merits-based (perjury, withheld evidence) and fail to show the narrow, egregious fraud-on-the-court standard	Court: Keelan’s allegations do not meet the high bar for fraud on the court and instead challenge underlying proceedings
Jurisdiction to consider a second/successive § 2255	Keelan: seeks district consideration under Rule 60 to avoid appellate authorization requirement	Gov: Eleventh Circuit authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)/§ 2255(h) is required before district court may consider a successive petition	Court: Lacks jurisdiction because Keelan did not obtain appellate authorization; dismissal recommended
Certificate of appealability (COA)	Keelan: implicitly seeks relief and appealability	Gov: COA is improper if district court lacks jurisdiction to consider successive petition	Court: May not issue a COA where it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to consider the successive petition

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (distinguishes true Rule 60 motions from those that attack the merits of habeas claims)
Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2003) (district court lacks jurisdiction to hear successive § 2255 without circuit authorization)
Galatolo v. United States, [citation="394 F. App'x 670"] (11th Cir. 2010) (only the most egregious conduct—e.g., bribery of judge, fabrication of evidence implicating counsel—constitutes fraud on the court)
Baker v. United States, [citation="791 F. App'x 884"] (11th Cir. 2020) (allegations of prosecutorial lies or witness perjury treated as § 2255 claims, not Rule 60 fraud-on-the-court claims)
Viera v. Florida Dep't of Corr., [citation="817 F. App'x 810"] (11th Cir. 2020) (Rule 60 cannot be used to evade successive-petition bars)
Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2007) (court lacking jurisdiction to consider successive habeas petition cannot grant a certificate of appealability)