Thompkins v. Berghuis, 2:05-cv-70188

Thompkins filed a §2254 habeas corpus petition on January 19, 2005 challenging his first-degree murder conviction.
The District Court denied the petition in an opinion and order dated September 28, 2006; the Sixth Circuit reversed that decision, and the Supreme Court later affirmed denial in 2010.
Thompkins filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment on November 18, 2010 alleging Detective Helgert lied about Thompkins’ interrogation statement and seeking an evidentiary hearing.
Thompkins argued ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not uncovering or calling evidence of the alleged fraud.
The court determined whether the Rule 60(b) motion was properly treated as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby and §2244(b)(3)(A).
The court ultimately ruled that the Rule 60(b) motion was not entitled to relief and denied it, noting the claims attacked the validity of the conviction and were not proper under Rule 60(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b) motion is a second habeas petition	Thompkins argues 60(b) attacks integrity of proceedings.	Defendant contends 60(b) attacks the conviction’s validity, requiring successive petition authorization.	Rule 60(b) motion is a successive petition when attacking conviction; not allowed without Sixth Circuit authorization.
Whether the motion properly challenges Detective Helgert's trial testimony	Thompkins asserts Helgert lied at trial about the interrogation.	State asserts no fraud by Helgert is asserted in the motion here.	Claims attack the conviction and are barred to 60(b) without authorization.
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on Thompkins’ Fifth Amendment claim	Thompkins seeks an evidentiary hearing on whether his silence was involuntary.	No hearing necessary because the record and precedent addressed the issue.	60(b) relief denied; evidentiary hearing not required given procedural posture and prior rulings.

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b) motion treated as successive petition when attacking conviction)
Thompkins v. Berghuis, 547 F.3d 572 (6th Cir. 2008) ( Sixth Circuit decision reversing district court on Fifth Amendment claim)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S. Ct. 2250 (2010) (Supreme Court affirms denial of habeas relief)
Wheeler v. John Deere Co., 935 F.2d 1090 (10th Cir. 1991) (quotations on reversing judgments and standards for evidentiary issues)
Hargrave-Thomas v. Yukins, 450 F. Supp. 2d 711 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (cited regarding standards and context of habeas proceedings)