## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O c t ob e r23,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT EUG ENE T. FOU ST, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. RO NAL D J . CH AM P I ON; S T AT E OF OKL AHOMA, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 5059 ( D. C. No . 8 9 - CV - 6 1 1 - T CK ) (N .D . O k la .)

OR DER DENYI NG A CERTI FI CATE OF APPE ALABI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. E ugene Fous t , a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s t he di s tr i ct c ou r t ’ s de ni a l of

hi s mot i on fo rr e l i e f f r om j ud gmen tpu r s ua ntt o Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) . F o rs u b s t a n t i a l l yth e s a me r e a s o n s s e tfo r th b yt h e d i s tr i c tc o u r twe DE NY a c e rt ific a te o f a p p e a la b ility (C O A ), DE NY th e im p lied a p p lica tio n to file a s ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i on, and D I SM I SS . In h is R u le 60 (b)(4 ) m o ti o n , F o u st sou g h t r eli ef fro m the d istri ct co u rt ’s O rd e r o f M a rc h 2 6 , 1 9 9 3 , d ism iss in g h is h a b e a s p e tit io n d u e to h is fa ilu re to ex h au st cl aim s in the O k laho m a state c o u rt s. F o u st asserts th at th e d istri ct co u rt ’s fa ilu re to a d d re ss h is in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l cla im w a s a “ p lain- 2 -

us urpat i on of j udi ci al author i ty ” and “ nul l and voi d i n t ot o ab i ni t i o, ” thus w arran ti n g reli ef

u n d er R u le 60 (b)(4 ). I n Spi t znas v. B oone, N o. 05- 6236, 2006 W L 2789868 ( 10th C i r . Sept . 29, 2006) , w e cl ar i fi ed thi s court ’ s tr eatm entof R ul e 60( b) m ot i ons i n the habe as c on t e xtpu r s ua ntt o the Sup r e me Court ’ s de c i s i on i n Gonz a l e z v. Cr os by , 54 5 U. S. 5 2 4 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . W e h e l d th a ta “ tru e ” 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n e i th e r“ ( 1 ) c h a l l e n g e s o n l y a pr ocedur al rul i ng of the habe as courtw hi ch pr ecl uded a mer i t s det erm i nat i on of the habe as appl i cat i on . . . or( 2) chal l enges a defecti n the i nt egr i tyof the fe der al h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g , p ro v id e d th a t su c h a c h a llen g e d o e s n o t it se lf lea d in e x trica b ly t o a m eri t s- based a t t ack o n the di sposi t i on of a p ri or habe as pet i t i on . ” S pit znas, 2 0 0 6 W L 2 7 8 9 8 6 8 , at *1 . If the d istri ct co u rtco rrectl ytr ea ts a p eti ti o n er’s m o tio n a s a R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n a n d d e n ies it, w e th e n re q u ire th e p e tit io n e r to obt ai n a C O A befor e pr ocee di ng w i th herappea l . I d. at*3. I n cas es of “mi xed” 60( b) m ot i ons cont ai ni ng both true R ul e 60( b) al l egat i ons and s econd or s ucce s s i ve habe as cl ai m s , t he di s tr i ctcour t“s houl d ( 1) addr es s the mer i t s of the true R ul e 60( b) al l egat i ons as i tw oul d the al l egat i ons i n anyotherR ul e 60( b) m ot i on, and ( 2) forw ar d the s econd ors ucce s s i ve cl ai m s t o thi s cour tfor author i zat i on. ” I d. at*2. I n thi s cas e, Foustas s ert s a numberof gr ounds forr el i ef. H i s fi r s t– that the di s tr i ctcourt“comm i t t ed a ‘ pl ai n us urpat i on of ju d icia l au th o rity ’ w h e n it i s s ued i t s O r derof M ar ch [26, 1993] di s m i s s i ng the pet i t i on[] forw r i tof habe as- 3 -

c o rp u s w ith o u t g iv in g th e p e tit io n e r a ‘f u ll an d fa ir o p p o rtu n ity ’ to p re se n t h is c laim s” – fa lls u n d e r th e first c a teg o ryo f tru e R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n s b e c a u se it c h a llen g e s o n lya p ro c e d u ra l ru lin g o f th e d istric t co u rt th a t p re c lu d e d a m e rits det erm i nat i on. T he di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l yperm i t t ed thi s por t i on of the P e titio n e r’ s m o tio n to p ro c e e d u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )( 4 ), a n d th e n d e n ie d th e m o tio n . F o llo w in g th e p ro c e d u re s s e t fo rth in S p itzn a s, w e n o w d e ter m in e w h e th e r to i s s u e F o u s ta C O A t o p r o c e e d w i th h i s a p p e a l o f th i s d e n i a l . S p i t z n a s , 2 0 0 6 WL 2789868, at*3. A C O A m ayi s s ue “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . Forcl ai m s ar i s i ng fr om a pr ocedur al rul i ng of the di s tr i ctcourt , a C O A m ayi s s ue onl yi f “the pr i s oners how s , atl eas t , t hatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hethert he p e tit io n e r sta tes a v a lid c laim o f th e d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t an d th a t ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld fin d it d e b a tab le w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt w a s c o rre c t in its p roc ed u ral ruli n g . ” S lack v . M cD an iel , 5 2 9 U . S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ). H er e, the di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l ydeni ed the R ul e 60( b) ( 4) m ot i on s eeki ng r e l i e f f r o m th e M a r c h 2 6 , 1 9 9 3 o r d e r . Ru l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) p r o v i d e s r e l i e f f r o m a ju d g m e n t o n th e g ro u n d th a t “ th e ju d g m e n t is v o id .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (b )( 4 ). A j udgm enti s voi d “onl yi f the courtw hi ch r ender ed i tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on of the s ubj ectm att er , orof the part i es , oract ed i n a manneri ncons i s t entw i th due- 4 -

pr oces s of l aw , ” and notm er el ybeca us e i ti s err oneous . I n r e FourSeas ons Sec. L a w s L itig ., 5 0 2 F .2 d 8 3 4 , 8 4 2 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 7 4 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s O rd e r o f M a rc h 2 6 , 1 9 9 3 is n e ith e r v o id n o r e rr o n e o u s . Be c a u s e th e p e t i t i o n e rh a d n o tp r e v i o u s l yp r e s e n t e d h i s c l a i ms t o th e Ok l a h o ma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s , the di s tr i ctcourtw as r equi r ed t o di s m i s s the pet i t i on forfai l ur e t o exhaus ts t at e r emedi es . A ccor di ngl y , j ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d not d e b a te th e c o rre c tn e ss o f th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f th e p e tit io n e r’s R u le 6 0 (b )( 4 ) m o tio n , a n d w e th u s d e c lin e to is s u e a C O A fo r t h is c la im . T he r emai nderof Foust ’ s m ot i on chal l enges the s t at e court s ’ j ur i s di ct i on, ar gues i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el dur i ng di r ectappea l , and as s er t s actual i nnocenc e of c r i m es forw hi ch he w as convi ct ed. B eca us e thes e gr ounds att ack the under l y i ng s t at e convi ct i on and nota pr ocedur al rul i ng ordefe ctof the di s t r i ct c o u rt, th e yc o n stitu te s u c c e ss iv e h a b e a s c laim s a n d c a n n o t p ro c e e d u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b ). W e in ste a d c o n stru e th is p o rtio n o f F o u st’s a p p e a l as a n a p p lica tio n to file a s ucce s s i ve habe as appl i cat i on under28 U . S. C . § 2254 as t o thes e cl ai m s . See Spi t znas , 2006 W L 2789868, at*4. I n or dert o r ece i ve author i zat i on t o fi l e a s ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i on, an appl i cantm us tm ake a pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng thathe s at i s fi es the cr i t er i a i n § 2244( b) ( 2) . W hen the appl i cantdoes notr el yon a new rul e of c ons t i tut i onal l aw m ade retroact i ve to cases on co l l at eral revi ew bythe S up rem e C ou rt , he m ust sh o w th a t:- 5 -

( i ) t he fa ctual pr edi cat e forthe cl ai m coul d nothave be en di s cover ed pr evi ous l yt hr ough the exe r ci s e of due di l i gence ; and ( i i ) the fa ct s under l y i ng the cl ai m , i f pr oven and vi ew ed i n l i ghtof the evi dence as a w hol e, w oul d be s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h bycl earand c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t, bu t fo r c o n stitu tio n a l er ro r, n o re a so n a b le fac t fi nderw oul d have found t he appl i cantgui l tyof the under l y i ng o ffe n s e . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b )( 2 )( B ). A on e-y ear peri od of li m i t at i on app l i es t o succe ssi ve h abeas ap pli cat i on s, runni ng fr om the dat e on w hi ch the fa ctual pr edi cat e of the cl ai m s coul d have b e e n d is c o v e re d th ro u g h th e e x e rc is e o f d u e d ilig e n c e . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ( D ) . Foustpr es ent s no fac tual pr edi cat e di s cover ed w i thi n one y earof h is fili n g fo r a n yo f

h is re m a in in g c laim s. T h e re fo re , the im p lied a p p lica tio n to fi l e a successi ve § 22 54 hab eas app l i cat i on i s DENI ED , the re q u e st fo r a C O A to app eal the d enial of the 60 (b) m oti on i s DENI ED , an d th e a p p e a l is DI S M I S S ED .

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge