Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05082/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05082-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

MICHAEL DEWAYNE BELL, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-5082 

(D.C. Nos. 4:06-CR-00140-GKF-1 & 

4:15-CV-00488-GKF-PJC) 

(N.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

 

Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Michael Dewayne Bell, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate 

of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s decision dismissing for lack of 

jurisdiction his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). We deny a COA. 

 Mr. Bell was convicted of aggravated bank robbery and carrying a firearm 

during and in relation to a crime of violence. He was sentenced to life imprisonment 

pursuant to the “three strikes” provision in 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(1). See United States 

v. Bell, 290 F. App’x 178, 181 (10th Cir. 2008). We affirmed his convictions and 

sentence on appeal. See id. at 185. Mr. Bell then filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to 

 *

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the 

case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

November 27, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-5082 Document: 01019530561 Date Filed: 11/27/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

vacate, which the district court denied. We denied his request for a COA to appeal 

from that decision. See United States v. Bell, 445 F. App’x 130, 131 

(10th Cir. 2011). 

 Earlier this year, Mr. Bell filed a Rule 60(b) motion. The district court 

concluded that the motion was an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion 

and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Bell now seeks to appeal from that 

decision. To do so, he must obtain a COA. United States v. Harper, 545 F.3d 1230, 

1233 (10th Cir. 2008). The showing necessary for a COA is “that jurists of reason 

would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000). 

 A district court lacks jurisdiction to hear a second or successive § 2255 motion 

unless the motion has been authorized by a court of appeals. In re Cline, 531 F.3d 

1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). To avoid this constraint, prisoners may try 

to disguise a second or successive § 2255 motion as a motion brought pursuant to 

Rule 60(b). See In re Pickard, 681 F.3d 1201, 1204 (10th Cir. 2012). But “we look 

at the relief sought, rather than a pleading’s title or its form, to determine whether it 

is a second-or-successive collateral attack on a defendant’s conviction.” United 

States v. Baker, 718 F.3d 1204, 1208 (10th Cir. 2013). “[A] Rule 60(b) motion is 

actually a second-or-successive petition if the success of the motion depends on a 

Appellate Case: 15-5082 Document: 01019530561 Date Filed: 11/27/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

determination that the court had incorrectly ruled on the merits in the habeas 

proceeding.” Pickard, 681 F.3d at 1206. 

 Although Mr. Bell argues in his COA application that the district court erred in 

dismissing his motion because it was properly brought under Rule 60(b), reasonable 

jurists could not debate the district court’s procedural ruling. In his Rule 60(b) 

motion, Mr. Bell argued that he made “a colorable claim of Actual Innocence,” in his 

initial § 2255 motion, R., Vol. I at 40, and the “government failed to rebut[] the claim 

of actual innocence,” id. at 41. He also argued that the government advocated for, 

and the district court applied, the wrong legal standard in reviewing his claim of 

actual innocence. The success of Mr. Bell’s Rule 60(b) motion therefore requires a 

determination that the district court incorrectly ruled on the merits of one of his 

§ 2255 claims. Under these circumstances, the district court properly construed 

Mr. Bell’s Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion 

and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. 

Appellate Case: 15-5082 Document: 01019530561 Date Filed: 11/27/2015 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

 Accordingly, we deny a COA.1

 We grant Mr. Bell’s motion for leave to 

proceed without prepayment of costs or fees. 

 Entered for the Court 

 ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

 1

 In his COA application, Mr. Bell noted that he had filed a separate petition 

seeking authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion based on the 

Supreme Court’s recent decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). 

That request for authorization, which was docketed as case number 15-5106, was 

denied on November 12, 2015. 

Appellate Case: 15-5082 Document: 01019530561 Date Filed: 11/27/2015 Page: 4