Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-10-03006/USCOURTS-ca10-10-03006-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Earl Lindsey
Petitioner

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 1, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

JAMES EARL LINDSEY,

Movant.

No. 10-3006

(D.C. Nos. 5:03-CR-40011, 

5:06-CV-4143-RDR)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER

Before O’BRIEN, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

James Earl Lindsey filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion arguing the

district court failed to consider the merits of the claims set forth his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The district court

concluded the motion required this court’s authorization under § 2255(h) and

transferred it to this court. Mr. Lindsey has moved for remand, arguing his Rule

60(b)(6) motion does not require authorization because it merely challenges the

integrity of the § 2255 proceedings. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532

(2005). We disagree.

When a petitioner argues the district court failed to rule on a claim, he is

challenging the integrity of the habeas proceedings, and therefore he is not

required to obtain authorization under § 2255(h). See Peach v. United States,

Appellate Case: 10-3006 Document: 01018375113 Date Filed: 03/01/2010 Page: 1
-2-

468 F.3d 1269, 1271 (10th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). But a comparison of

Mr. Lindsey’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion with the district court’s order denying his

§ 2255 motion shows the district court did in fact consider and decide the five

ineffective-assistance claims Mr. Lindsey identifies. Compare Rule 60(b)(6)

Motion at 3-5, with 1/29/2007 Order at 5-8, 8-9, 11-12, 12-15, 17. When

Mr. Lindsey complains the district court failed to reach the merits of his claims,

he really is arguing the district court failed to rule correctly on those claims. 

Such assertions constitute claims for relief that must receive authorization under

§ 2255(h). See Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532 (“A motion can also be said to bring a

‘claim’ if it attacks the federal court’s previous resolution of a claim on the

merits, since alleging that the court erred in denying habeas relief on the merits is

effectively indistinguishable from alleging that the movant is, under the

substantive provisions of the statutes, entitled to habeas relief.” (footnote

omitted)). Accordingly, the district court did not err in transferring the Rule

60(b)(6) motion to this court.

The motion for remand is DENIED, and this matter is terminated.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-3006 Document: 01018375113 Date Filed: 03/01/2010 Page: 2