Vargas v. Bear, 701 F. App'x 683

Martin Vargas, convicted in Oklahoma of burglary, rape, and sodomy after pleading guilty, was sentenced to 50 years (10 suspended) and filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the district court dismissed as time-barred.
Vargas filed three postjudgment motions (Rule 60(b)); each denial affected the appellate deadlines; only the denial of the third motion (Nov. 10, 2016) was timely appealed.
The central question on appeal was whether the third motion was a “true” Rule 60(b) motion or a second-or-successive habeas application (which would implicate jurisdictional constraints).
Vargas argued actual innocence to overcome AEDPA’s statute-of-limitations bar; he relied on previously known inconsistencies in the victim’s account and facts known at the time of his guilty plea.
The district court treated the third motion as a true Rule 60(b) motion and denied it as repetitive; the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether a certificate of appealability (COA) should issue and whether Vargas’s actual-innocence showing could excuse the procedural bar.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal	Vargas contended his filings preserved appellate rights	Government/district court applied Fed. R. App. P. timing rules to motions	Appellant’s November 29 filing was timely only to challenge denial of the third motion; earlier appeals were untimely
Nature of 3rd postjudgment motion	Vargas treated it as Rule 60(b) relief from procedural dismissal	District court treated it as a true Rule 60(b); court must distinguish true 60(b) vs second-or-successive habeas	The third motion was a true Rule 60(b) motion (challenged procedural dismissal) not a successive habeas filing
COA standard for Rule 60(b) denial	Vargas sought COA to appeal denial of the 3rd motion	Government argued Vargas failed to make a substantial showing that reasonable jurists would debate the denial	COA denied: Vargas did not meet Slack’s standard and must show procedural ruling is debatable; he failed to do so
Actual-innocence gateway to overcome AEDPA time bar	Vargas claimed actual innocence based on alleged victim discrepancies and a tattoo description known at plea	Government noted no new exculpatory evidence; claims were previously asserted and known at plea	Actual-innocence claim is meritless—evidence was not new; district court properly denied relief for reasserted arguments

Ysais v. Richardson, 603 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2010) (successive postjudgment motions do not extend appellate deadline)
Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes true Rule 60(b) motions from second-or-successive habeas applications)
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2000) (motion for reconsideration cannot relitigate issues or raise arguments that could have been raised earlier)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000) (standards for issuing a certificate of appealability when habeas relief is denied on procedural grounds)
McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (U.S. 2013) (actual innocence can serve as gateway to overcome procedural bars including statute of limitations)
Hale v. Fox, 829 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2016) (actual innocence in postconviction proceedings requires new, reliable, exculpatory evidence)