Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01476/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01476-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Timothy C. Washington
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1476

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Timothy C. Washington, etc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 27, 2006

Filed: January 10, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Washington appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion challenging a 2001 order denying 28 U.S.C. § 2255

relief. As the district court concluded--and contrary to Washington’s position--his

motion was in reality a successive section 2255 motion filed without authorization.

Cf. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2647-48 (2005) (Rule 60(b) motion should

not be treated as successive habeas motion if it attacks district court’s previous

resolution of claim on procedural grounds); United States v. Patton, 309 F.3d 1093,

Appellate Case: 06-1476 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2007 Entry ID: 3266352
-2-

1094 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (inmates may not bypass authorization requirement

of § 2255 by purporting to invoke some other procedure). Thus, dismissal was proper.

See Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1476 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2007 Entry ID: 3266352