FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T OCTOB ER 13, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 40 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :9 8- cv -0 20 88 -DLG

JAM ES BERNARD CAMP BELL,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us

SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 3, 2 01 1)

Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.
PER CURI AM:Ja m es Bern ard Cam pb el l, a Fl or id a pr is on er, ap pe al s pr o se th e di st ric t co ur t’s

or de r su m

m ari ly de nyin g hi s Fed .R.Ci v.P

. 60 (b ) m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m it s or de r

di sm is si ng hi s 19 98 pe ti ti on fo r ha be as co rp us , fil ed pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 22 54

.
Cam pb el l or ig in al ly was co nv ic ted of m ultip le ch arg es , in cl ud in g fir st -d eg ree m ur de r

an d se nt en ced to de at h. The Fl or id a Su pr em e Co ur t la te r va cat ed hi s de at h se nt en ce

an d rema n d e d f

o r res en te nc in g. In 19 94 , Cam pb el l fil ed hi s fir st § 22 54 pe ti ti on

at ta ck in g th e res en te nc in g or de r, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

. Fo ll owi ng a nu m be r

of st at e co ur t pr oc eed in gs , th e st at e tri al co ur t ul ti m at el y en te red a jud gm en t red uc in g

Cam pb el l’s de at h se nt en ce to li fe im pr is on m en t. Cam

pb el l fil ed hi s 19 98 ha be as

pe ti ti on to at ta ck th is jud gm en t, bu t th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed it as se co nd or

su cces si ve

.
The reaf te r, Cam pb el l pr oc eed ed wit h a se rie s of at te m pt s to co ll at eral ly at ta ck

hi s st at e cri m in al jud gm en t, in cl ud in g se ve ral pu rp or te d “ Ru le 60 (b )(4 )” m ot io ns fo r

rel ie f fro m

th e d is m is sa l o rd er. W it h re sp ect to th e in st an t “ Ru le 60 (b )(4 )” m ot io n,

hi s fo ur th , th e di st ric t co ur t is su ed it s de ni al in Apr il 20 10 , rem ark in g o n l y t ha t it

co ns id ered th e m ot io n al on g wit h th e rel ev an t po rti on s of th e reco rd , an d was ad vi se d

of it s pr em is es

. W e su bs eq ue nt ly gr an te d a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y (“ COA”) to

co ns id er t he fol lo win g i ss ue : “ whe th er, in li gh t o f Mag woo d v . Pat te rs on , 56 1 U.S.

2__ , 13 0 S.Ct

. 27 88 , 17 7 L.Ed.2 d 59 2 (2 01 0) , th e d i s tri ct co ur t erre d in de nyin g

Cam pb el l’s Ru le 60 (b )(4 ) m ot io n.”

On ap pe al , Cam

pb el l arg ue s th at : ( 1 ) t he di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s

m os t r e c e n t R ul e 60 (b ) m ot io n be cau se th e 19 98 ha be as pe ti ti on was hi s fir st

c o l la te ral at ta ck on th e st at e co ur t jud gm en t im po si ng li fe im

pr is on m en t, req ui rin g

tre at m en t un de r Mag woo d as hi s “ fir st bi te at th e ap pl e” as to th at jud gm en t; an d (2 )

th e d i s t ric t co ur t bo th vi ol at ed th e ru li ng in Mag woo d an d act ed “ in co ns is te nt [ly]

wit h pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s of la w” whe n it up he ld th e di sm is sa l of hi s 19 98 ha be as

pe ti ti on as s eco nd or s uc ces si ve . After t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we va cat e an d re m an d.

Gen eral ly, we rev ie w th e de ni al of a Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.

Bu rk e v. Sm it h, 25 2 F.3 d 12 60 , 12 63 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ). “ A di st ric t co ur t by de fin it io n

ab us es it s di sc ret io n whe n it m ak es an erro r of la w.” Koo n v. Uni te d St at es , 51 8 U.S.

81 , 10 0 (1 99 6)

. Bu t, whe re th e di st ric t co ur t ha s no t co ns id e r e d a di sc ret io na ry

m at te r in th e fir st in st an c e , w e t yp i cal ly wil l rem an d fo r it to do so

. See Adv an ced

Es t i mat in g Sy s., In c. v. Ri ne y , 7 7 F.3 d 13 22 , 1 32 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 96 ) (h ol di ng th at a

le ga l st an da rd en un ci at ed by t h e S u p rem e Co ur t ap pl ie d, an d rem an di ng fo r th e

di st ric t co ur t t o e va lu at e th e cas e u nd er t ha t s ta nd ard in th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e).

W e ho ld pr o se pl ead in gs to a le ss st rin ge nt st an da rd th an pl ead in gs dr aft ed by

at to rn ey s and th us co ns tru e th em li be ral ly. Tan ne nb au m v. Unit ed St at es , 14 8 F.3d

312 62 , 12 63 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ). Lik ewis e, “ fed eral co ur ts m us t lo ok be y on d th e la be ls

of m ot io ns fil ed by p ro se in m at es ” to in te rp ret th em in th e m an ne r th at wou ld be st

pr ov id e r e l i ef. Mea ns v. Ala., 20 9 F.3 d 12 41 , 12 42 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ). The

Ant it erro ris m an d Effect iv e Deat h Pen al ty Act (“ AEDPA”) pr ov id es th at ge ne ral ly,

if a ha be as pe ti ti on is “ se co nd or su cces si ve ,” it can no t pr oc eed un le ss au th or iz ed by

a p an el fro m

th e ap pr op ria te co ur t o f ap pe al s, wh ic h c an on ly do s o i f th e ap pl ic an t

m a k e s cert ai n req ui red sh owi ng s. 28 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )(3 )(A). Abs en t su ch

au th or iz at io n, th e di st ric t co ur t la ck s juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er an y cl ai m s in th e m ot io n

or is su e a COA wit h res pe c t to th em , an d di sm is sa l is ap pr op ria te

. W il li am s v.

Ch at m an , 51 0 F .3d 12 90 , 12 95 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ).

The Su pr em e Co ur t rece nt ly ad dr es se d whe th er a de fen da nt in st at e cu st od y ,
who al read y ha d fil ed a § 22 54 pe ti ti on at ta ck in g hi s cri m in al jud gm en t, co ul d fil e a

la te r § 22 54 pe ti ti on at ta ck in g an in te rv en in g jud gm en t -- th at is , a jud gm en t im po se d

in hi s crim in al pr oc eed in gs aft er h is fir st pe ti ti on , bu t p rio r to hi s s eco nd pe ti ti on
--
wit ho ut ha vi ng to ob ta in l e a v e f r o m t he co ur t of ap pe al s un de r § 22 44 (b )(3 )(A).
Mag woo d, 13 0 S.Ct

. at 27 95

. In Mag woo d, th e pe ti ti on er, an Alab am a st at e pr is on er,

was fo un d gu il ty of m

ur de r in 19 81 a n d se nt en ced to de at h. Id

. at 27 92 -9 3. Afte r

ex ha us ti ng hi s ap pe al s, Mag woo d fil ed a § 22 54 pe ti ti on in fed eral co ur t an d ob ta in ed

a st ay of ex ecu ti o n a n d c o nd it io na l gr an t of th e writ pe nd in g res en te nc in g. Id

. at

427 93

. At res en te nc in g in 19 86 , Mag woo d ag ai n was se nt en ced to d e a t h

. Id

. He

ag ai n ap pe al ed , aft er whi ch he fil ed a ren ewed § 22 54 m ot io n in fed eral co ur t on th e

gr ou nd s th at he di d no t ha ve fai r warn in g th at hi s co n d u c t c o u ld res ul t in a de at h

se nt en ce, an d th at he ha d rece iv ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l at res en te nc in g.

Id

. at 27 94

. The di st ric t co ur t co n d i t i o na ll y gr an te d th e writ in 20 07 , bu t we

su bs eq u e n t l y va cat ed on th e ba si s th at th e pe ti ti on sh ou ld ha ve be en di sm is se d as

se co nd or su cces si ve be cau se th e c l a im s th erei n co ul d ha ve be en rai se d in
Mag woo d’s fi rs t p et it io n. Id . at 2 79 4- 95

.
The Su pr em e Co ur t rev ers ed ou r de ci si on , h ol di ng th at Mag woo d’s pe ti ti on ,
whi ch ch al le ng ed “ hi s new sen te nc e un de r th e 19 86 jud gm en t,” was no t “ se co nd or

su cces si ve .” Id

. at 28 03

. Sp eci fic al ly, th e Co ur t co nc lu de d th at , whe n “ th ere is a ne w jud gm en t in te rv en in g be twee n t he two ha be as pe ti ti on s, an ap pl ic at io n ch al le ng in g

th e res ul ti ng ne w jud gm en t is no t ‘seco nd or su cces si ve ’ at al l.” Id

. at 28 02 (in te rn al

qu ot at io n an d ci ta ti o n s o mitt ed ). The Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at , be cau se a ha be as

pe ti ti on er se ek s “ in va li da ti on (in who le or in pa rt) of th e jud gm en t [o f a St at e co ur t]

. . . . th e ph ras e ‘seco nd or su cces si ve ’ m us t be in te rp ret ed wit h res pe ct t o th e
jud gm en t ch al le ng ed ,” as op po se d to a p e t i ti on er’s cu st od y

. Id

. at 27 97 (em ph as is

an d qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. In li gh t of th e res en te nc in g pr oc eed in g, th e Co ur t

de te rm in ed th at , al th ou gh Mag woo d’s in st an t pe ti ti on was se co nd -in -ti m e, it was hi s

5fir st pe ti ti on “ ch al le ng in g th at in t e r v e n i n g ju dg m en t.” Id

. at 28 01

. In m ak in g th is

de te rm in at io n, th e Co ur t reject ed th e st at e’s po si ti on th at th e “ se co nd or su cces si ve ”

ru le ap pl ie d to cl ai m s th at co ul d ha ve be en rai se d in a pr io r pe ti ti on , ex pl ai ni ng th at ,
be cau se Mag woo d’s ch al le ng es , in cl ud in g hi s fai r-warn in g ch al le ng e, ap pl ie d to th e

de at h se nte nc e im

pos ed at res en te nc in g, th ey as se rte d “ ne w erro r” th at effe ct iv el y w as

co m m it te d a sec on d t im e. Id . at 2 79 8, 2 80 1.

Alt ho ug h we h av e n ot y et co ns id ered whe th er Magwo od pe rm it s a p et it io ne r

who rece iv ed an in te rv en in g jud gm en t to at ta ck th e un al te red pr io r co nv ic ti on , we

ha ve ru le d th at bo th “ [t]he writ an d AEDPA” are “ fo cu se d on th e jud gm en t whi ch

ho ld s t he pe ti ti on er in co nf in em en t.” Ferr ei ra v. Sec’y , Dep ’t of Co rr., 49 4 F.3 d

12 86 , 12 93 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ). Sp eci fic al ly, “ th e jud gm en t to whi ch AEDPA refe rs is

th e un de r l yi n g c on vi ct io n an d m os t rece nt se nt en ce th at au th or iz es th e pe ti ti on er’s

cu rren t de te nt io n.” Id

. at 12 92 -9 3 (h ol di ng th at a § 22 54 pe ti ti on fil ed fiv e y ears aft er

an un de rlyin g co nv ic ti on , bu t wit hi n on e y ear of res en te nc in g, was ti m el y

no twi th st an di ng th e fac t t ha t t he pe ti ti on er’s cl ai m s re la te d s ol el y to hi s u nd erl y in g

co nv ic ti on ). Tha t th is vi ew wou ld eq ua ll y ap pl y to pe ti ti on ers at ta ck in g in te rv en in g
jud gm en ts un de r Mag woo d fin ds su pp or t fr om th e o nl y two of o ur si st er ci rcu it s to

ha ve pr es en tl y ad dr es se d th is is su e. See, e.g ., Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 62 3 F.3 d 41 ,
45 -4 6 (2 d Ci r. 20 10 ) (p ers ua si ve ) (h ol di ng th at , be twee n th e Mag woo d an d an ot he r

6Su pr em e Co ur t ru li ng th at jud gm en ts in cl ud ed bo th th e ad jud ic at io n of gu il t an d th e

se nt en ce, “ [i]t fo ll ows th at , whe re a fir st h a b e a s p et it io n res ul ts in an am en de d
jud gm en t, a su bs eq ue nt pe ti ti on is no t su cces si ve reg ard le ss of whe th er it ch al le ng es

th e co nv ic ti on , th e se nt en ce, or bo th ”); Mar ti n v. Bart ow, 62 8 F.3 d 87 1, 87 7- 78 (7 th

Ci r. 20 10 ) (p ers ua si ve ) (o bs erv in g t h a t Mag woo d pe rm it te d ch al le ng es th at co ul d

ha ve be en rai se d p rev io us ly and was n ot li m it ed to res en te nc in g)

.
W e al so ob se rv e th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s su gg es te d th at Mag woo d ap pl ie s

ret ro act iv el y to cas es on co ll at eral rev ie w. Fo r ex am pl e, th e Co ur t recen tl y gr an te d

cert io rari an d va cat ed a Fi fth Ci rcu it de ci si on in whi ch it affi rm ed an or de r fro m th e

di st ric t co ur t di sm is si ng a fed eral pr is o n e r ’s 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n as se co nd or

su cces si ve , no twi th st an di ng th e fact th at th e pe ti ti on at ta ck ed an in te r v e n i ng
jud gm en t. See Garza v. Uni te d St at es , 13 1 S.Ct

. 14 69 , 17 9 L.Ed.2 d 29 3 (2 01 1)

. The

Su pr em e Co ur t th en rem an de d th e cas e to th e Fi fth Ci rcu it fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n

in li gh t o f Mag woo d. Id

.
Bas ed on th is cas e la w, we ho ld th at Mag woo d a p p l i e s to th e fact s of

Cam pb el l’s cas e. As su ch , th e di st ric t co ur t, whi ch su m m ari ly de ni ed Cam

pb el l’s pr o

se Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n at ta ck in g th e d i s mi s s a l o f hi s 19 98 ha be as pe ti ti on as se co nd

or su cces si ve , sh ou ld be gi ve n an op po rtu ni ty to ev al ua te hi s arg um en ts un de r
Mag woo d in th e fir st in st an ce. Acco rd in gl y , we va cat e th e or de r of th e di st ric t co ur t

7de nyin g Ru le 60 (b ) rel ie f, an d rem an d wit h in st ru ct io ns to : (1 ) reex am in e th e m eri ts

of h i s mo t i o n i n li gh t of th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s ru li ng in Mag woo d; (2 ) ap pl y in g a

li be ral co ns tru ct io n, de te rm in e th e pr ov is io n of Ru le 60 (b ) th at w o u l d be m os t

fav or ab le to hi m ; an d (3 ) or de r th e St at e to res po nd as n eed ed

. 1

VACATED AND REMANDED.

We also DENY Campe ll’s motion t o strike the State’s r esponse br ief. 1

8