509 F. App'x 517
6th Cir.2013Background
- Thompkins was convicted in Michigan in 2002 of first-degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and firearms offenses.
- He pursued post-conviction relief in state and federal courts, resulting in two federal cases.
- The current appeal challenges a district court denial of his Rule 60(b) motion claiming Detective Helgert lied and that an evidentiary hearing was warranted.
- The district court treated the Rule 60(b) motion as a second or successive § 2254 petition and denied for that reason, and also denied reconsideration and a COA.
- The court held Thompkins’ fraud-on-the-cederal-habeas-record theory failed because it would require fraud on the federal court, which he did not prove, and because his claim attacked the state court judgment of conviction.
- The appellate court affirmed, denying permission to file a second or successive petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thompkins’ Rule 60(b) motion is a second or successive petition | Thompkins argues Rule 60(b) fraud appeal justifies relief | Gonzalez framework treats it as second/successive petition | Yes; treated as second/successive petition |
| Whether the alleged fraud on the federal court established a basis for Rule 60(b) relief | Fraud by Helgert was perpetrated against the federal court | Fraud, if any, was against the state court; not the federal court | No; not shown fraud on the federal court |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was necessary to resolve the issue | An evidentiary hearing should have been held | Waived/not necessary to resolve the issue raised in petition | No evidentiary hearing required; argument was waived or not necessary |
| Whether Thompkins can raise a new claim under Gonzalez to obtain relief | Claims should be considered on the merits with a hearing | New claims require § 2244(b) criteria; not met | Not eligible; claim not meeting § 2244(b)(2) requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (Rule 60(b) motions attacking a conviction treated as second or successive petitions unless fraud on the court is shown; not meriting relief)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. — (U.S. 2010) (Background on Thompkins’ habeas proceedings and related issues)
- Thompkins v. Berghuis, 547 F.3d 572 (6th Cir. 2008) (Framework for habeas petition and Rule 60(b) interplay)
- Carter v. Anderson, 585 F.3d 1007 (6th Cir. 2010) (Fraud on the court standard for showing relief)
- Lancaster v. Metrish, 683 F.3d 740 (6th Cir. 2012) (Waiver of arguments not raised in district court)