Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-05141/USCOURTS-ca10-07-05141-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Bauhaus
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

JAMES BAUHAUS,

Movant.

No. 07-5141

(D.C. No. 96-CV-929-SEH)

ORDER

Filed October 23, 2007

Before McCONNELL, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Movant James Bauhaus, an Oklahoma state inmate proceeding pro se, has

filed a motion for remand. Bauhaus filed a motion in the district court which he

captioned as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, but the district court

ruled that it constituted a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 motion. Because Bauhaus had

previously filed a § 2254 petition, but had not obtained authorization from this

court to file another § 2254 petition, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), the

district court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the motion and transferred it

to this court. See Coleman v. United States, 106 F.3d 339, 341 (10th Cir. 1997)

(per curiam) (directing district courts to transfer unauthorized second or

successive § 2254 motions to this court in the interest of justice pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1631). Bauhaus now moves this court for an order remanding the

Appellate Case: 07-5141 Document: 010155641 Date Filed: 10/23/2007 Page: 1 
-2-

matter to the district court, arguing that he does not need this court’s

authorization to file his motion in the district court. We deny the motion.

Bauhaus was convicted in 1974 of murder and was sentenced to life

imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Bauhaus v.

State, 532 P.2d 434 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975). In 1996, he filed his first § 2254

habeas petition, which was denied by the district court. We denied his request for

a certificate of appealability. Bauhaus v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 726 (10th Cir. 1998)

(unpublished). He has since filed three motions requesting authorization to file a

second or successive § 2254 petition, all of which have been denied. See

Bauhaus v. Reynolds, No. 07-5094 (10th Cir. June 21, 2007) (denying motion for

authorization and reciting Bauhaus’s history of filing § 2244(b) motions for

authorization). In his most recent motion, Bauhaus sought to assert a claim based

on alleged new evidence that the police wasted samples of the killer’s blood

recovered from the crime scene and had more samples available than they

presented at trial. We ruled this alleged new evidence was insufficient to

authorize filing of a second or successive § 2254 petition because it did not

establish “by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no

reasonable factfinder would have found [Bauhaus] guilty of the underlying

offense.” Id., slip. op. at 3 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii)).

Bauhaus then filed his Rule 60(b) motion raising the same claims presented

in his last motion for authorization: he claimed the police wasted the killer’s

Appellate Case: 07-5141 Document: 010155641 Date Filed: 10/23/2007 Page: 2 
-3-

blood samples recovered from the crime scene and that the prosecutor had more

samples available than he presented at trial. He contends that authorization from

this court is not required to file this motion because he is claiming that fraud and

deceit were used to obtain his conviction.

A post-judgment motion, even if presented in a Rule 60(b) motion, must be

treated as a second or successive petition, and be authorized for filing by a court

of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), if it asserts or reasserts a substantive

claim to set aside a petitioner’s criminal conviction. See Gonzalez v. Crosby,

545 U.S. 524, 530-31 (2005). Bauhaus’s Rule 60(b) motion clearly reasserts

substantive challenges to his 1974 conviction. A Rule 60(b) motion to vacate a

judgment denying a § 2254 habeas petition is to be construed as a second or

successive habeas petition where, as here, the Rule 60(b) motion seeks to

challenge the underlying state conviction, rather than “some defect in the integrity

of the federal habeas proceedings.” Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532. Thus, the district

court properly construed Bauhaus’s motion as an unauthorized attempt to file a

second or successive § 2254 petition.

Moreover, authorization of Bauhaus’s proposed claims cannot be granted

because he seeks to present the claims raised in his last motion for authorization.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) (providing that any claim presented in a successive

petition that has already been adjudicated in a previous petition must be

dismissed). 

Appellate Case: 07-5141 Document: 010155641 Date Filed: 10/23/2007 Page: 3 
-4-

The district court correctly treated Bauhaus’s proposed § 2254 as a second

or successive § 2254 petition; Bauhaus does not seek authorization to file his

claims in a successive § 2254 petition, nor could such authorization be granted. 

The motion for remand is DENIED, and the matter is TERMINATED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 07-5141 Document: 010155641 Date Filed: 10/23/2007 Page: 4