United States v. Teaupa, 1:12-cr-01128

Defendant-petitioner Uiki Teaupa filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to move to dismiss the superseding indictment, to dispute methamphetamine quantity at sentencing, to seek acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, and to appeal lack of a government substantial-assistance motion).
The district court denied Teaupa’s § 2255 motion and a certificate of appealability on December 12, 2016; the Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and rehearing.
Teaupa then filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion claiming the district court erred by not permitting discovery and by not holding an evidentiary hearing on his § 2255 motion.
The district court analyzed whether the Rule 60(b) filing constituted a true Rule 60(b) motion or a second/successive § 2255 petition under Gonzalez and Ninth Circuit precedent.
The court concluded Teaupa’s complaints about lack of an evidentiary hearing and lack of discovery attacked the merits of the § 2255 ruling (i.e., constituted "claims") and therefore were a second or successive § 2255 petition.
Because a second or successive § 2255 petition must be authorized by the court of appeals, the district court referred Teaupa’s Rule 60(b) motion to the Ninth Circuit under Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Teaupa's Rule 60(b) motion is a proper Rule 60(b) motion or a second/successive § 2255 petition	Teaupa argued the court denied procedural rights (discovery and evidentiary hearing) and sought Rule 60(b) relief from the final judgment	The government argued the motion actually attacks the merits of the § 2255 decision and thus is a successive § 2255 petition requiring appellate authorization	Court held the motion raises merits "claims" and is a second/successive § 2255 petition; referred to Ninth Circuit
Whether Teaupa was entitled to discovery or an evidentiary hearing in his § 2255 proceeding	Teaupa contended the court should have allowed discovery and held an evidentiary hearing	Government noted discovery in § 2255 proceedings is discretionary (Rule 6) and Teaupa never requested discovery; court discretion permits denying hearings when the record conclusively shows no relief	Court held no automatic right to discovery; denial of a hearing was a merits determination and not a defect in the integrity of the proceeding, so these complaints are treated as § 2255 claims

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (distinguishes Rule 60(b) procedural defects from merits-based § 2254/§2255 claims)
Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950) (standard for extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b))
United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.) (2011) (Rule 60(b) motions challenging lack of evidentiary hearing are merits attacks and constitute successive petitions)
In re Lindsey, 582 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2009) (challenging denial of evidentiary hearing constitutes a claim on the merits)
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (standard for when an evidentiary hearing is required in collateral attacks)
United States v. Mejia-Mesa, 153 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 1998) (district court may deny an evidentiary hearing when files and records conclusively show movant not entitled to relief)
United States v. Rodrigues, 347 F.3d 818 (9th Cir. 2003) (movant must allege specific facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief)
United States v. Buenrostro, 638 F.3d 720 (9th Cir. 2011) (Gonzalez principles apply to § 2255 proceedings)