McCray v. Florida Department of Corrections, 1:24-cv-21319

Terrelance McCray filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Florida state probation-violation sentence, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations.
The district court denied his habeas petition on the merits, finding no evidence the State made a plea offer or that counsel was ineffective.
McCray later filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, alleging fraud by the respondent for not disclosing documents purportedly showing prior plea offers.
McCray based this motion on new documents obtained post-judgment from a public records request, claiming these proved the State made formal plea offers.
The court evaluated whether the motion was an improper successive habeas petition and whether it met the fraud standard under Rule 60(b)(3).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Successiveness of Rule 60(b) motion	Motion is to reopen under Rule 60(b) for fraud and newly discovered evidence.	Motion is a successive habeas petition attacking prior merits.	Motion is a successive petition; court lacks jurisdiction.
Fraud and disclosure of new plea offer evidence	Failure to disclose documents showing plea offers was fraud upon the court.	No fraud; documents do not prove an actual formal offer was made.	Plaintiff did not show fraud by clear and convincing evidence.
Effectiveness of trial counsel during plea process	Counsel was ineffective for not alerting him to plea deal errors and failing to negotiate.	No formal plea offer was ever extended by the State.	No credible evidence of formal plea offers.
Need for evidentiary hearing based on new documents	New documents show offer existed, mandating a hearing.	Documents don’t show actual plea offers; hearing unnecessary.	No basis for a new hearing on habeas petition.

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b) motions that attack the merits of a habeas denial are treated as successive petitions)
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (open court declarations carry strong presumption of verity)
Maradiaga v. United States, 679 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2012) (Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy, granted only with exceptional circumstances)
Booker v. Dugger, 825 F.2d 281 (11th Cir. 1987) (fraud for Rule 60(b) relief must be shown by clear and convincing evidence)
Insignares v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 755 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2014) (district court lacks jurisdiction over unauthorized successive petitions)