A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has * det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s t her efor e s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, orcol l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s o f 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . B eca us e he i s pr ocee di ng pr o s e, w e r evi ew M r . C l emm ons ’ pl eadi ngs and 1 filin g s lib e ra lly. See Hai nes v. Ker ner , 4 0 4 U . S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -21 (19 7 2 ); Hal lv. B el lm on , 9 3 5 F .2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 0 (1 0 th C ir .1 9 9 1 ). 

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

### O c t ob e r12,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 

### UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

T E N T H C IRC U IT

ED W A RD LEE CL EM M O N S, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. STEV EN J . D A V I ES, R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 04- 3426 ( D. C. No . 9 0 - CV- 3 0 3 5 - S AC)

(K ansas)



### ORD ERAN D J UDG M EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

E dw ar d L ee Cl emm ons , a K ans as s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , 1 chal l enges t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r econs i der . T he di s tr i ctA pet i t i onerm us tobt ai n a C O A befor e pr ocee di ng w i th hi s appea l of a 2 di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, w her e the di s tr i ctcourtt r eat ed t he mot i on as a “true” Rul e 60( b) m ot i on and notas a s econd ors ucce s s i ve h a b e a s p e titio n . Spi tz nas v. B oone , __ F .3 d __ , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 7 8 9 8 6 8 a t * 3 (1 0 th C ir . , S ep t. 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 ).

- 2- cour tal s o deni ed M r . C l emm ons ’ r eques tt o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris on appea l and hi s appl i cat i on for a cert i fi cat e of appea l abi l i ty ( “C O A ”) . B eca us e the 2 di s t r i ctcourti ncorr ect l yt r eat ed M r . C l emm ons ’ m ot i on t o r econs i deras a “true” R u le 60 (b) m o ti o n , w e v ac ate the o rde r fo r l ac k o f ju ri sd ict ion , co n stru e M r. C l emm ons ’ m ot i on as an appl i cat i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i on, and denyi t . W e al s o denyhi s r enew ed r eques tt o pr ocee d ifp . M r. C lem m o n s w as c o n v ict ed in 1 9 8 4 o n o n e c o u n t of firstd eg ree m u rde r, t w o count s of aggr avat ed r obbery , t w o count s of att empt ed murde r , and one c ount of unl aw ful l ypos s es s i ng a fi r earm . I n 1990, he fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habea s corpus pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254, cl ai m i ng ( 1) hi s convi ct i on w as bas ed on evi dence obt ai ned i n an unl aw ful arr es tand s ubs equentunl aw ful i dent i fi cat i on pr oces s ; ( 2) he w as deni ed effec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ; ( 3) he w as deni ed the r i ghtt o compul s or ys ervi ce t o obt ai n the t es t i m onyof w i tnes s es favor abl e t o t he defens e; and ( 4) he w as deni ed the r i ghtt o equal pr ot ect i on under t h e l a w. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td e n i e d M r . Cl e mm o n s ’ p e t i t i o n i n 1 9 9 2 , a n d we di s m i s s ed hi s appea l forfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e. M o re th a n ten y e a rs la ter , M r. C lem m o n s filed a m o tio n to re c o n sid e r w ith- 3-

th e d istric t co u rt, cla im in g th e d isc o v e ryo f n e w e v id e n c e re latin g to th e v a lid ity of hi s convi ct i on and the us e of f r aud t o obt ai n thatconvi ct i on. R egar di ng the l at enes s of hi s m ot i on, M r . C l emm ons cl ai m ed that“s t at e pr i s on offi ci al s s ei zed [his ] l egal papers” thereby“i nter fer[i ng ] w i th [an d] hi nd er[i ng ] hi s pro se p r o s e c u t i o n ” o f

h i s h a b e a s c l a i m. T he di s t r i ctcour tcons t rued M r . C l emm ons ’ m ot i on as one “forr el i ef f r om jud g m en t un d er F ED . R. C IV . P. 60( b) . ” N ot i ng thats uch a mot i on m us t“be made w ith in a re a so n a b le tim e ,” th e c o u rt ru led th a t n e a rlye lev e n y e a rs w a s n o t a “r eas onabl e t i m e, ” and thatM r . C l emm ons had noti dent i fi ed a l egi t i m at e r eas on for the lengt hydelay . A ccordi ng l y , t he co urtdid not r each M r. C l em m on s’ under l y i ng cl ai m s of new l ydi s cover ed evi dence and i ntr i ns i c fr aud, and i ns t ead dis m i ssed hi s m oti on as unti m el y . M r. C l em m on s appea l s. I n Spi tz nas v. B oone , __ F .3 d __ , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 7 8 9 8 6 8 a t * 1 (1 0 th C ir., S e p t. 29, 2006) , w e ac know l edged thatt he Supr eme C our ti n G onz al ezv. C r os by , 545 U . S. 524 ( 2005) , overrul ed ourhol di ng i n Lopezv. D ouglas , 1 4 1 F .3 d 9 7 4 (1 0 th C i r . 1998) , t hatal l R ul e 60( b) m ot i ons i n habea s pr ocee di ngs m us tbe tr eat ed as s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e h a b e a s p e titio n s fo r p u rp o s e s o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b ). A ccor di ngl y , w e now m us tdi s t i ngui s h betw een Rul e 60( b) m ot i ons t hatar e “true” R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n s a n d se c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e h a b e a s p e tit io n s th a t m e re ly“Forpurpos es of appl y i ng t he G on zal ez rul e, w e tr eatanyR ul e 60( b) 3 equi val ent( s uch as a mot i on t o r econs i derfi l ed more t han t en day s aft er j udgm ent. . . ) as a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on. ” Spi tz nas , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 7 8 9 8 6 8 a t * 1 .

- 4- m asquerade as R ule 60 (b) m oti on s. Spi tz nas , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 7 8 9 8 6 8 a t * 1 -4 . 3 “U n d er G onz al ez , a 6 0 (b ) m o tio n is a se c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e p e tit io n if it i n s ubs t ance oreffectas s ert s orr eas s er t s a fe der al bas i s forr el i ef f r om t he pet i t i oner ’ s under l y i ng convi ct i on. ” Id . at1. I n the eve ntw e det erm i ne thatt he di s t r i ctcourti ncorr ect l yt r eat ed a mot i on fora s ucce s s i ve ors econd ha beas pet i t i on as a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, “w e w i l l vaca t e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derforl ack of j ur i s di ct i on and cons t rue the pet i t i oner ’ s appea l as an appl i cat i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i on. ” Id . at*4. T h e c lai m s in M r. C lem m o n s’ m o ti o n to rec o n side r, n am elythe d isco v ery of new evi dence and i nt r i ns i c fr aud r el at i ng t o the val i di tyof hi s convi ct i on, as s er torr eas s erta fe der al bas i s forr el i ef f r om hi s under l y i ng convi ct i on. T hey do not“cha l l enge[ ] . . . a pr ocedur al rul i ng of the habe as courtw hi ch pr ecl uded a m er i t s det erm i nat i on of the habe as appl i cat i on . . . orchal l enge[ ] a defecti n the i nt egr i t yof the fe der al habea s pr ocee di ng. ” Id . at * 1 . A c c o rd in g ly , h is m o tio n to r econs i dercannotbe dee m ed a “ true” Rul e 60( b) m ot i on and musti ns t ead be tr e a te d a s a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e h a b e a s p e titio n .

T he A E D PA - amended habea s corpus s t atut es r es tr i ctt he pow er of the fe der al cour t s t o ent er t ai n s econd ors ucce s s i ve appl i cat i ons fo r w ri ts o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s . See 28 U . S. C . § 2244. B efor e a pet i t i onerm ayfi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve 28 U . S. C . § 2254 pet i t i on- 5-

i n t he di s t r i ctcourt , he musts ucce s s ful l yappl yt o thi s courtforan o rd e r a u th o ri z in g th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to c o n s id e r t h e p e titio n . S e e id . § 2 2 4 4 (b)(3 ). Spi tz nas , 2006 W L 2789868 at*1 ( footnot e omi t t ed) . 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 pet i t i on, [A ] n 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) . . . . T hati s he musts how that : ( i ) the fa ctual p re d ica te fo r th e c laim c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n d isc o v e re d p re v io u sly t hr ough t he exe r ci s e of due di l i gence ; and ( i i ) the fa ct s under l y i ng t he 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 convi nci ng evi dence t hat , butforcons t i tut i onal err or , no r eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw oul d have fo u n d th e a p p lic a n t g u ilty o f th e u n d e rl y in g o ffe n s e . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b)(2 )(B ). Spi tz nas , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 7 8 9 8 6 8 at *1 2 . W e n ee d n o t con side r w h ethe r M r. C l emm ons m eet s t he s econd e l ementof thi s i nqui ry“s i nce the t es ti s conj unct i ve and he fai l s t he fi r s tel ement . ” Id . D es pi t e l abel i ng hi s cl ai m “new l ydi s cover ed evi dence , ” M r . C l emm ons does notpoi ntt o any e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g h is under l y i ng i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m , l etal one new l ydi s cover ed evi dence . M r . C l emm ons al s o fai l s t o poi ntt o anynew l ydi s cover ed evi dence re latin g to h is in trin sic f ra u d c laim . A lth o u g h h e c laim s h e d id n ’t k n o w th e sta te w as as s er t i ng C har l ot t e J ohns on w as hi s s pous e, the r ecor d r efl ect s that i nform at i on w as s etoutatl eas tbythe t i m e of the s t at e court ’ s or deraff i r m i ng M r . C l emm on’ s convi ct i on, on O ct ober25, 1985. R ec. , doc. 2. H ence he has not m ade a pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng t hatm i ghtperm i tus t o author i ze the fi l i ng of a s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i on.- 6-

F in a lly , a p riso n e r se e k in g if p sta tu s m u st d e m o n stra te fin a n c ial in a b ili tyto payand the exi s t ence of “a r eas oned, nonfr i vol ous ar gum enton the l aw and the fac t s i n s uppor tof the i s s ues r ai s ed on appe al . ” McIn to sh v . Un itedS ta tes P a ro le C o m m 'n , 115 F. 3d 809, 812- 13 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . B eca us e M r . C l emm ons has notm ade a s how i ng of good fa i th and the abs ence of fr i vol i t y , w e denyhi s m ot i on forl eave t o pr ocee d ifp o n a p p e a l. B as ed on the for egoi ng, w e VAC ATE the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er d en y ing M r. C l emm ons ’ m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, cons true hi s not i ce of appea l as an appl i cat i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i on, and DE NY i t . W e al so DE NY hi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d ifp , D I SM I SS hi s appl i cat i on fora C O A , and D I SM I SS th is a p p e a l. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge