A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor ds , thi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l y thator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l y as s i s tthe det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T he H onor abl e J ohn L . K ane, Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct ** C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 

## F I LED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### S ep tem b e r29,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT
D O U G LA S A . SPI TZN A S,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. BO BB Y BO O N E; BO BB Y J O N ES,

R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 6236

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E WE S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

( D. C. No . 9 8 - CV - 1 3 3 - H) S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: * D ougl as A . Spi t znas , pr o s e. W i l l i am R . H ol m es , A s s i s t antA t t or ney G ener al , W . A . D r ew E dm onds on, A t t orney G eneral of O klahom a, O klahom a C i t y , O klahom a, for A pp el l ees. B efor e BR ORBY and EBEL , C i r cui tJ udges , and KANE , D i s tr i ctJ udge. **See A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal t y A ct , Pub. L . N o. 104- 132, 1 1 1 0 S tat . 1 2 1 4 (19 9 6 ). Sect i on 2244 al s o i m pos es the fol l ow i ng r equi r ement s on fi l i ng s econd or 2 s ucce s s i ve peti t i ons : “Fi r s t , any cl ai m thathas al r eadybeen a dj udi cat ed i n a pr evi ous pet i t i on m us tbe di s m i s s ed, ” G onz al ez v. C r os by , 125 S. C t . 2641, 2646 (2005 ) ( ci t i ng § 2 24 4(b)( 1)) ; “[s] econ d, any cl ai m that has n o t al r eadybeen a dju d ica ted m u st b e d ism iss e d u n les s it re lies o n e ith e r a n e w a n d re tro a c tiv e ru le of cons t i tut i onal l aw ornew fac t s s how i ng a hi gh pr obabi l i t y of ac tual i nnocenc e, ” id . ( ci t i ng § 2244( b) ( 2) ) ; and, “[t ] hi r d, befor e the di s tr i ctcour tm ay a c c e p t a s u c c e ss iv e p e tit io n fo r fili n g , the c o u rt o fa p p e a ls m u st d e ter m in e th a t it p rese n ts a claim n o t prev iou slyraised that is sufficien t t o m ee t § 2 2 4 4 (b)(2 )’s new - r ul e oractual
- i nnocenc e pr ovi s i ons , ” id . (cit ing § 2 2 4 4 (b)(3 )).

- 2- EBEL , C i r cui tJ udge.

T he A E D PA
- amended habea s corpus s t atut es r es tr i ctthe pow erof the 1 fede r al cour t s t o ent er t ai n s econd ors ucce s s i ve appl i cati ons forw r i t s of habe as c o rp u s . See 28 U . S. C . § 2244. B efor e a pe t i t i onerm ay fi l e a s econd or su c c e ss iv e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 p e tit io n in th e d istric t co u rt, h e m u st s u c c e ss fu lly appl y t o thi s cour tforan or derauthor i zi ng the di s tr i ctcour tt o cons i derthe p e titio n . See i d. § 2244( b) ( 3) . A s econd ors ucce s s i ve 28 U . S. C . § 2255 m ot i on 2
m us tal s o be ce r t i fi ed by a pane l of thi s cour tpur s uantt o § 2244 befor e i tm ay p ro c e e d in d is tr ic t c o u rt . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . I n Lopez v. D ougl as , 1 4 1 F .3 d 9 7 4 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ), w e a n n o u n c e d a ru le thattr eat ed al l Fed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) m ot i ons i n habea s pr ocee di ngs as s econd or s ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i ons fo r p u rp o s e s o f§ 2 2 4 4 (b ). Id . a t9 7 5 . R e c e n t l y,Forpurpos es of appl y i ng the G onz al ez r ul e, w e tr eatany R ul e 60( b) 3 equi val ent( s uch as a mot i on t o r econs i derfi l ed more than t en day s aft er j udgm ent , a bel at ed “Rul e 59” mot i on, ora mot i on t o s ubm i taddi t i onal evi dence of fr aud) as a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on.

- 3- how ever , the Supr eme C our tcl ar i fi ed thatnotal l 60( b) m ot i ons i n s uch p ro c e e d in g s c o n s titu te s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e p e titio n s . See G onz al ez v. C r os by , 12 5 S . C t . 26 41 (2005 ). S om e 60 (b) m oti on s ar e i n fac t“true” 60 (b) m oti on s, free fr om § 2 24 4’s r equ i rem ents . S e e id . a t 2 6 4 7 . H e re , M r. S p itzn a s is appea l i ng the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deni al of hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on s eeki ng r el i ef fr om the di s m i s s al of hi s § 2254 pet i t i on. I n l i ghtof the new l ands cape cr eat ed by G onz al ez , w e w i l l fi r s tl ay outthe l aw thatappl i es t o thi s cas e. W e w i l l then appl y thatl aw t o M r . Spi t znas ’ s appea l t o r eac h an appr opr i at e di s pos i t i on. I . AP P LI CAB LE LA W O u r first ta sk in layi n g o u t th e law is to e n u n c iate th e su b sta n tiv e ru le di ct at i ng w hen, pur s uantt o G onz al ez , a pl eadi ng denomi nat ed a Rul e 60( b) m ot i on thatar i s es w i thi n a habe as cont exts houl d be tr eat ed as a s econd or s ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i on and w hen i ts houl d be tr eat ed as a “tr ue” 60( b) m o ti o n . W e w il l th en ad d ress the p rop er p roc ed u res, i n b o th the d istri ct co u rt

3 a n d th e a p p e lla te c o u rt , fo r d is p o s in g o fs u c h R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n s . A . Se c ond o r Suc c e s s i ve H abe as Pet i t i ons vs . True R ul e 60 ( b) M ot i ons 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 ifit i n s ubs t ance oreffectas s er t s orr eas s er t s a fe der al bas i s forr el i ef fr om the- 4-

p e titio n e r’ s u n d e rl y in g c o n v ic tio n . See 12 5 S . C t . at26 51 . C on versel y , i ti s a “tr ue” 60( b) m ot i on i f i tei ther( 1) chal l enges onl y a pr ocedur al r ul i ng of the habea s cour tw hi ch pr ecl uded a mer i t s det er m i nat i on of the habe as appl i cati on, i d. at2648 n. 4; or( 2) chal l enges a defecti n the i nt egr i t y of the fe der al habea s pr ocee di ng, pr ovi ded thats uch a c hal l enge doe s noti t s el f l ead i nextr i cabl y t o a m e ri ts -b a s e d a tta c k o n th e d is p o s itio n o fa p ri o r h a b e a s p e titio n , id . at2648. Som e exa m pl es of R ul e 60( b) m ot i ons thats houl d be tr eat ed as s econd or s ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i ons beca us e they as s er torr eas s er ta fe der al bas i s for re lieffro m th e u n d e rly in g c o n v ictio n in c lu d e : a m o tio n se e k in g to p re se n t a c laim o fc o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r o m itte d fro m th e m o v a n t’ s in itia l h a b e a s p e titio n , s ee i d. at2647, 2648; a mot i on s eeki ng l eave t o pr es ent“new l y di s cover ed evi dence ” in o rd e r t o a d v a n c e th e m e ri ts o fa c la im p re v io u s ly d e n ie d , s e e id . at 26 4 7 ; or a m ot i on “s eek[ i ng] vi ndi cati on of” a habea s cl ai m by chal l engi ng the habe as c o u rt ’s p re v io u s ru lin g o n th e m e ri ts o fth a t c la im , i d. a t 2 6 4 7 -4 8 . B y co n tr ast, a 6 0 (b) m o ti o n that ch all en g es o n lythe fed era l hab ea s co u rt ’s r ul i ng on pr ocedur al i s s ues s houl d be tr eat ed as a tr ue 60( b) m ot i on r atherthan a s u c c e s s iv e p e titio n . S e e id . at2648 & n. 4. T hus , forexampl e, a mot i on as s er t i ng th a t th e fe d e ra l d istric t co u rt in c o rre c tlyd ism iss e d a p e tit io n fo r fa ilu re to exhaus t , pr ocedur al bar , orbeca us e of the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons cons t i tut es a tr ue 6 0 (b ) m o tio n . See i d.W e ca ut i on l i t i gant s thats pur i ous att empt s t o r e- cas ts ubs t ant i ve habe as 4 ar gum ent s i n the gui s e of “ fr aud on the court ” ( by al l egi ng, forexampl e, thatthe sta te c o m m itt e d “ fra u d o n th e h a b e a s c o u rt” b y fa ili n g to a d m it t o o r to demonstr at e the l egal orfac tual w eakne s s es i n i t s ow n pos i t i on) , w i l l pr oper l y be tr eat ed as an att emptt o al l ege orr e- al l ege s ubs t ant i ve gr ounds forhabea s r el i ef, (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 5- A R ul e 60( b) m ot i on as s er t i ng fr aud orotherdefe cti n the i nt egr i t y of the fe d e ra l h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g m a y a lso c o n stitu te a tru e 6 0 (b ) m o tio n , alth o u g h th is t y pe of mot i on r equi r es a more nuance d anal y s i s . Forexampl e, w hethera 60( b) m ot i on thatal l eges a defecti n the i nt egr i ty of the habe as pr ocee di ng bas ed upon a cl ai m of fr aud on the courtcons t i tut es a tr ue 60( b) m ot i on depends on the fr aud al l eged . If the all eged fraud o n the cou rtrel at es s ol ely t o fr aud perpetr at ed on the fede r al habea s cour t , then the mot i on w i l l be cons i der ed a tr ue 60( b) m ot i on. See id . at2648 n. 5 ( ci t i ng exampl e of w i t nes s ’ s al l egedl y fr audul entr efus al t o t es t i fy atfede r al habea s hear i ng) . T hus , an al l egati on thatthe s t at e pr es ent ed fr audul ent t es t i m ony befor e the habe as cour tthatw as s epar at e and di s t i nctfr om any pr evi ous fr aud al l eged t o have t ai nt ed the i ni t i al convi ct i on ordi r ectappea l m ay b e the su bject ofa true 6 0 (b) m o ti o n . H o w ev er, i f th e frau d o n the h ab ea s co u rt i ncl udes ( ornece s s ar i l y i m pl i es ) r el at ed fr aud on the s t at e court( orthe fe der al di s tr i ctcour tthatconvi ct ed and/ ors ent ence d the movanti n the ca s e of a § 2255 m ot i on) , then the mot i on w i l l or di nar i l y be cons i der ed a s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i on beca us e anyr ul i ng w oul d i nextr i cabl y chal l enge the under l y i ng convi ct i on pr ocee di ng. 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 thus pr es ent i ng a s econd ors ucce s s i ve peti t i on.

- 6- B . P roce dural D i s posi t i on i n t he D i s t ri ctC ourt H avi ng l ai d outthe s ubs t ant i ve rul es , w e now tur n t o the pr operpr ocedur al di s pos i t i on of R ul e 60( b) m ot i ons i n habea s cas es . W e begi n w i th s t eps t o be fol l ow ed by di s tr i ctcour t s i n thi s ci r cui tw hen they ar e pr es ent ed w i th a R ule 60(b) m oti on i n a h abeas o r § 225 5 case. T he d i stri ctcou rtshou l d fir st det er m i ne, us i ng the cr i t er i a w e have out l i ned above , w hetherthe mot i on i s a tr ue R ul e 60( b) m ot i on ora s econd ors ucce s s i ve peti t i on. Ifth e d istric t co u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t th e m o tio n is a tru e R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n , it s houl d r ul e on i tas i tw oul d any otherR ul e 60( b) m ot i on. I f, how ever , the di s tr i ctcour tconcl udes thatthe mot i on i s actual l y a s econd ors ucce s s i ve peti t i on, it s h o u ld re fe r t h e m a tte r t o th is c o u rtfo r a u th o ri z a tio n u n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (b )( 3 ). See 28 U . S. C . § 1631 ( author i zi ng tr ans ferof ci vi l acti on orappea l fi l ed w i thout j ur i s di ct i on, i n the i nt er es tof j us t i ce, “t o any othercour ti n w hi ch the ac t i on or a p p e a l co u ld h a v e b e e n b ro u g h t at th e tim e it w a s filed o r n o tice d ” ); C ol em an v. Uni t ed Stat es , 106 F. 3d 339, 341 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( percur i am). I n the ca s e of a “mi xed” mot i on–thati s , a mot i on cont ai ni ng both tr ue R ul e 60( b) al l egati ons and s econd ors ucce s s i ve habe as cl ai m s –the di s tr i ctcour ts houl d ( 1) addr es s the m er i t s of the tr ue R ul e 60( b) al l egati ons as i tw oul d the al l egati ons i n any otherA conce r n w i th ourappr oach t o “mi xed” Rul e 60( b) m ot i ons m ay be 5 (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 7- R u le 60 (b) m o ti o n , an d (2) fo rw ard the s ec o n d o r suc ce ssive claim s to this co u rt fo r a u th o ri z a tio n . Som e court s , i ncl udi ng atl eas tt w o ci r cui tcour t s of appe al s , have r equi r ed a m o v an t bri n g ing a “ m ixed ” m o ti o n eith er to se ek au tho ri za ti o n to fil e the en ti re m ot i on as a s econd ors ucce s s i ve peti t i on, ort o del et e the s econd ors ucce s s i ve cl ai m s s o as t o pr ocee d ent i r el y i n the di s tr i ctcour ton tr ue 60( b) cl ai m s thatdo n o t r e q u ir e a u th o ri z a tio n . R ei d v. A ngel one , 3 6 9 F . 3 d 3 6 3 , 3 7 5 (4th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); P e n n in g to n v . No rr is , 2 5 7 F .3 d 8 5 7 , 8 5 8 -5 9 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); Tow ns end v. Vas bi nder , N o. 04- C V
- 74846, 2005 W L 2246988, at*1 ( E . D . M i ch. Sept . 15, 2005) ( unpubl i s hed) . W e do notadoptthi s anal y s i s , beca us e i ti s bas ed on rul es d e v e lo p e d in th e c o n te x t o fe x h a u s tio n o fs ta te c o u rtre m e d ie s . See Rose v. Lundy , 4 5 5 U .S . 5 0 9 , 5 1 0 (1 9 8 2 ). W h e re a s th e e x h a u stio n d o c trin e se e k s to pr ot ectthe s t at es ’ concomi t antr ol e of c orr ecti ng cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons i n our sy ste m o fd u a l so v e re ig n ty , n o sim ilar c o m ityo r fe d e ra l co n c e rn s e x ist in deci di ng a mi xed 60( b) m ot i on, w hi ch onl y r equi r es pr ocee di ngs atdi ffe r ent l evel s w i thi n the s ame feder al s y s t em. B eca us e no s i m i l arover ar chi ng cons t i tut i onal pr i nci pl es exi s tt o j us t i fy i ncorpor at i ng the “a l l ornothi ng” a p p ro a c h d e v e lo p e d in th e c o n tex t o fth e to tal e x h a u stio n ru le in to th is c o n tex t, w e dec l i ne t o do s o. 5( . . . cont i nued) 5 w hetheri ti m pr oper l y s pl i t s the peti t i oner ’ s caus e of a ct i on. W e ar e convi nced th a t itd o e s n o t, fo r tw o re a so n s. F irst, an im p o rta n t ex c e p tio n to th e ru le r equi r i ng a pl ai nt i ff t o br i ng al l of hi s avai l abl e cl ai m s agai ns ta defendanti n a s i ngl e ac t i on, orr i s k ext i ngui s hm entof om i t t ed cl ai m s , exi s t s w hen the pl ai nt i ff is un ab le t o b ri n g all o f h is or h er c lai m s in a sing le ac ti o n b ec au se a sing le co u rt la c k s s u bje c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n o v e r a ll th e c la im s . See R es t at ement( Second) of J u d g me n t s § 2 6 ( 1 ) ( c ) ; 1 8 Ch a r l e s Al a n Wr i g h t , Ar th u rR. M i l l e r , & E d wa r d H. C o o p e r, F ederal P ract i ce & P rocedu re § 44 12 , at 27 6 (2d ed. 20 02 ). In the case of a “ m i xed” 60( b) m ot i on, the di s tr i ctcour thas j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i dertr ue 60( b) i s s ues , buti tl acks j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derw hethert o per m i tthe fi l i ng of a sec o n d o r suc ce ssive h ab ea s p eti ti o n . S ec o n d , co n ce rns a b o u t cl aim -splitti n g are n o t p re se n t w h e n it i s th e c o u rt itse lfth a t o rd e rs th e c laim a n t to p u rsu e h is ju d ic ia l r e m e d ie s in tw o s e p a ra te fo ru m s . C f. R e sta tem e n t (S e c o n d ) o fJu d g m e n ts § 2 6 (1 )(b ) (re c o g n izin g e x c e p tio n to c laim -sp littin g ru les w h e re c o u rt e x p re ss ly r es er ves pl ai nt i ff’ s r i ghtt o pur s ue s econd a cti on) . A ccor di ngl y , ourdi r ecti ve on the corr ectpr ocedur al di s pos i t i on of a “ m i xed” 60( b) m ot i on does notr un afoul of the or di nar y pr ohi bi t i on on s pl i tcaus es of ac t i on.

- 8- C . P roce dural D i s posi t i on and R equi rem ent s on A ppeal We n e x ta d d r e s s th e p r o c e d u r e s t o b e fo l l o we d b y th i s c o u r twh e n we r ece i ve appe al s ortr ans fer s r es ul t i ng fr om the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s di s pos i t i on of a p u rp o rte d R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n in a h a b e a s c a se . Ifth e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tly tr eat ed the mot i on ( orany por t i on ther eof) as a “tr ue” Rul e 60( b) m ot i on and d e n ied it, w e w ill re q u ire th e m o v a n t to o b tain a c e rtific a te o fa p p e a lab ili ty (C O A ) b e fo re p ro c e e d in g w ith h is o r h e r a p p e a l. In h o ld in g th a t a C O A is r equi r ed t o appea l fr om the deni al of a tr ue R ul e 60( b) m ot i on i n the di s tr i ct c o u rt , w e jo in e v e ry c ir c u it b u t o n e th a t h a s a d d re s s e d th is is s u e . C ompa re Uni t ed Stat es v. Lam br os , 4 0 4 F .3 d 1 0 3 4 , 1 0 3 6 -3 7 (8 th C ir .), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 5 S . C t. 2 9 5 3 (2 0 0 5 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Vargas , 3 9 3 F . 3 d 1 7 2 , 1 7 4 (D . C . C ir . 2 0 0 4 ),- 9-

cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 64 4 (2 0 0 5 ); R e id , 3 6 9 F .3 d a t 3 6 9 ; G o n za lez v. Se c’y D ep’tof C orr. , 3 6 6 F .3 d 1 2 5 3 , 1 2 6 3 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), af f’ d on othergr ounds s u b n o m . G o n z a le z v . C r o s b y , 1 2 5 S . C t. 26 4 1 (2 0 0 5 ); Kel l ogg v. St rack , 269 F. 3d 1 0 0 , 1 0 3 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (p e r c u ria m ); R ut l edge v . Uni t ed Stat es , 230 F. 3d 1041, 1 0 4 6 -4 7 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); M orri s v. H orn , 1 8 7 F . 3 d 3 3 3 , 3 3 6 , 3 3 8 -40 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); Langf

ord v. D ay , 1 3 4 F . 3 d 1 3 8 1 , 1 3 8 2 -83 (9th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) w i th D unn v. C o c k re ll , 3 0 2 F . 3 d 4 9 1 , 4 9 2 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (ho lding C O A n o t r eq u ir ed ). A n y o ther c o n clus ion w o u ld lead to an ab su rd re su ltco n tr ary to C o n g ress’s i nt enti n enac t i ng § 2253. T he purpos e of the C O A r equi r ement“i s t o pr event fr i vol ous cas es fr om cl oggi ng appel l at e docke t s and t o pr om ot e fi nal i t y . ” Vargas , 393 F. 3d at175 ( ci t i ng B a re fo o t v. E ste lle , 4 6 3 U. S . 8 8 0 , 8 9 2 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ( CO A p re d e c e ss o r sta tu te) ). T h u s, it w o u ld b e ill o g ica l th a t a C O A w o u ld b e re q u ire d to appea l fr om a habe as j udgm ent , butnotfr om the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s or derdeny i ng R u le 6 0 (b ) r e lie ffro m s u c h a ju d g m e n t. See i d. , at174- 75 ( “[I ] tw oul d m ake no s ens e forC ongr es s t o r equi r e the s cr eeni ng of appe al s fr om j udgm ent s deny i ng [§ 2254] or§ 2255 pet i t i ons y et[fr eel y ] al l ow appea l s fr om deni al s of R ul e 60( b) m o tio n s s e e k in g to re o p e n th o se ju d g m e n ts.” ); s ee als o G onz al ez , 366 F. 3d a t 1 2 6 4 ; Kel l ogg , 269 F. 3d at103. A ccor di ngl y , i n acc or dance w i th theT he C O A s houl d, as i n al l s uch ca s es , be s oughtfi r s tfr om the di s tr i ct 6 c o u rt. A l though both r equi r ement s s er ve gat ekee perfuncti ons , w e not e thatthe 7 s t andar ds us ed i n appl y i ng the r equi r ement s di ffe rs i gni fi cant l y . T he gr antof a C O A r equi r es 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) . B y contr as t , the gr antof per m i s s i on t o fi l e a s econd or s u c c e s s i v e p e t i t i o n r e q u i r e s a s h o wi n g e i th e ro fa n e w r u l e o fc o n s t i tu t i o n a l l a w, m ade r etr oacti ve by the Supr eme C our tt o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew , and p re v io u sly u n a v a ilab le to th e p e tit io n e r; o r a c laim b a se d o n a fa c tu a l p re d ica te thatcoul d nothave be en di s cover ed pr evi ous l y thr ough the exe r ci s e of due d il igen ce that d em o n str ates b y clea r an d co n v incin g ev iden ce the p eti ti o n er’s la c k o fg u ilt o fth e u n d e rl y in g o ffe n s e . Id. § 2 2 4 4 (b)(2 ).

- 10- leg isla tiv e lan g u a g e in a n d p u rp o se u n d e rly in g § 2 2 5 3 , w e c o n c lu d e th a t a C O A is r equi r ed t o appea l fr om the deni al of a tr ue R ul e 60( b) m ot i on. 6 B utno C O A i s r equi r ed i f the di s tr i ctcour tcorr ect l y tr eat s a 60( b) m ot i on a s a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e p e titio n a n d tr a n s fe rs it to u s fo r a u th o ri z a tio n . See C ol em an , 1 0 6 F .3 d a t 3 4 1 . T h is is b e c a u se th e C O A re q u ire m e n t ap p lies o n ly w hen the appl i cantdes i r es t o pur s ue “a n appea l . ” See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 1 ). Fi l i ng a s econd ors ucce s s i ve peti t i on, ors eeki ng author i zati on t o fi l e s uch a pet i t i on, i s notan appe al . Fur ther m or e, both a C O A and an a ppl i cati on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve peti t i on ar e gat ekee pi ng functi ons , and w e s ee no ba s i s for doubl i ng them up such thatpet i t i oner s m us ts at i s fy both t es t s befor e w e may author i ze them t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve peti t i on. W e ther efor e conc l ude 7 thata C O A i s notr equi r ed as a thr es hol d m att ers i m pl y t o det er m i ne w hethertheO f cour s e, cons i s t entw i th ourpr i orpr acti ce, w e may , butar e notr equi r ed 8 t o, exer ci s e di s cr et i on t o cons tr ue a r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y as an a p p lica tio n to file a se c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e p e tit io n , o r v ice v e rsa a s w a rra n ted in th e in te re s ts o fju s tic e . P eas e v. K l i nger , 115 F. 3d 763, 764 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( per cu ri am ).

- 11- m ot i on i s , i n fac t , a s econd ors ucce s s i ve peti t i on and, i f s o, w hetheri ts houl d be author i zed. 8 I f the tr ue natur e of a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on fi l ed i n di s tr i ctcour ti s uncert ai n, in d ispu te by the p eti ti o n er, or if w e d isag ree w ith the d istri ct co u rt ’s d e ter m in a tio n , w e w ill d e ter m in e b a se d o n th e m a ter ials b e fo re u s w h e th e r it s houl d be cha r act er i zed a s a tr ue R ul e 60( b) appea l oras a r eques tfor author i zati on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve peti t i on. W e w i l l then appl y the appr opr i at e s t andar d acc or di ng t o ourr evi ew , as l ai d outabove. I f w e det er m i ne that the d i stri ctcou rti m properl y charact eri zed a true R ule 60(b) m oti on as a s econd ors ucce s s i ve peti t i on, w e w i l l or di nar i l y r emand t o per m i tthe di s tr i ct c o u rtto a d d re s s th e tr u e R u le 6 0 (b ) i s s u e s in th e fir s t in s ta n c e . B uts ee G onz al ez , 125 S. C t . at2650- 51 ( r eac hi ng bey ond ques t i on of w hetherm ot i on cons t i tut ed su c c e ss iv e p e tit io n o r tru e 6 0 (b ) m o tio n , o n w h ich c e rtio ra ri w a s g ra n ted , to addr es s m er i t s of m ot i on hel d t o r ai s e tr ue 60( b) i s s ues ) . I f, on the otherhand, the di s tr i ctcour thas i ncorr ect l y tr eat ed a s econd ors ucce s s i ve peti t i on as a tr ue R u le 60 (b) m o ti o n an d d en ied it on the m erit s, w e w il l vac ate the d istri ct co u rt ’s- 12-

or derforl ack ofj ur i s di ct i on and cons tr ue the peti t i oner ’ s appea l as an appl i cati on to file a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e p e titio n .

I I . F ACT UAL AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY A . N at ure ofO ffens e, C om pet ency E x am i nat i on, and G ui l t y P l ea O n N o v e m b e r 2 4 , 1 9 8 7 , M r. S p itzn a s w a s c h a rg e d in O k lah o m a sta te di s tr i ctcour tw i th one countof ki dnapi ng forext or t i on, thr ee c ount s of fi r s t - d e g r e e r a p e o fa fi ft e e n - ye a r - o l d g i r l , fo u rc o u n t s o ffo r c i b l e a n a l s o d o m y, t w o count s of for ci bl e or al s odom y , t w o count s of r ape byi ns tr um ent at i on, and one countof chi l d beati ng, al l i nvol vi ng the s ame vi ct i m and al l aft erfor m er convi ct i on of a fel ony . A ft erdefe ns e couns el fi l ed an a ppl i cati on for det er m i nat i on of compet ency , the di s tr i ctcour tor der ed thatM r . Spi t znas under go a compet encyeval uat i on. A ps y chi atr i s tfr om the O kl ahoma D epart m entof M ent al H eal th w ho e v a lu a te d M r. S p itz n a s s e n t h e r fin d in g s to th e tr ia l c o u rto n F e b ru a ry 8 , 1 9 8 8 . She concl uded thatM r . Spi t znas w as unabl e t o appr eci at e the natur e of the c h a rg e s a g a in st h im a n d u n a b le to a ss ist ra tio n a llyin th e p re p a ra tio n o fh is d e fe n se . S h e a lso c o n c lu d e d th a t h e w a s m e n tally ill , an d th a t, w ith o u t trea tm e n t, h e p o sed a d an g er to h im self o r oth ers. Pro v ided h e re ce ived tr ea tm en t, h o w ev er, th e p s yc h i a tr i s tb e l i e v e d h e c o u l d a t t a i n c o m p e t e n c y. O n Febr uar y 16, 1988, the s t at e di s tr i ctcour thel d a pos t - exami nat i on compet encyhear i ng. T he di s tr i ctcour tfound thatM r . Spi t znas w as “i ncompet entM r. S p itzn a s’s trial c o u n se l tes tifie d a t th e fe d e ra l ev id e n tiary he a rin g h e ld 9 i n thi s m att erthathe made r epea t ed att empt s t o obt ai n a pl ea ba r gai n offe rfr om the pr os ecuti on, w hi ch w er e r ebuffed bec aus e of the s er i ous natur e of the

- 13- b u t ca p a b le o fo b tain in g c o m p e ten c y .” It th e n c o m m itt e d h im to th e E a ste rn S tate H o s p ita l in V in ita , O k la h o m a . O n Ju n e 1 4 , 1 9 8 8 , o ffici als at E astern S tat e H o sp it al w rote the d istri ct co u rt a l ett erconcl udi ng thatM r . Spi t znas w as now abl e t o appr eci at e the natur e of the char ges agai ns thi m , w as abl e t o as s i s tr at i onal l y i n hi s ow n defe ns e, and w as not m e n tally ill , b u t th a t h e d id p o se a sig n ifica n t d a n g e r to h im se lfo r o th e rs if release d . O n Ju n e 2 9 , 1 9 8 8 , the s tat e re q u ested , an d the s tat e d istri ct co u rt s chedul ed, a s econd pos t - exami nat i on compet encyhear i ng. I n an or derdat ed J ul y 22, 1988, the di s tr i ctcour tfound M r . Spi t znas co m p eten t and o rde red that crim inal p roc ee d ing s resu m e. T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s or derr efl ect s thatonl y the di s tr i ctatt or ney appea r ed befor e the di s tr i ctcour ton the m att er, an d n o tes th at “a fter fu ll inv esti g ati o n o f th e m att er,” th e d istri ct co u rt found M r . Spi t znas t o be compet ent . M r . Spi t znas ’ s couns el appr oved the co n tents o f th e o rde r w ith h is si g n ature at th e b o tt o m o f th e o rde r. O n N ovember2, 1988, M r . Spi t znas ent er ed a bl i nd gui l t y pl ea t o eac h of the offens es w i th w hi ch he w as char ged, w i th the exc ept i on of one c ountof for ci bl e or al s odom y , w hi ch the s t at e had dr opped bym eans of an a m ended i nfor m at i on fi l ed pr i or t o the pl ea hear i ng. M r . Spi t znas w as s ent ence d on 9( . . . cont i nued) 9 offenses.

- 14- D ece m ber19, 1988. A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, he cont ended thathe had l i ed atthe pl ea he ar i ng conce r ni ng the fa ctual bas i s forhi s gui l t y pl ea, and thathe had i n fac thad no mem or y of the ac t s w i th w hi ch he w as char ged and ha d onl y r eci t ed fac t s thathe r ece i ved fr om t el evi s i on orr ead i n the new s paper s . H e r eques t ed thathe be a l l ow ed t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l t y pl ea. T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed the m o tio n . M r . Spi t znas ’ s couns el pr es ent ed an a r gum entform i t i gat i on ats ent enci ng, i n w hi ch he s t at ed thatthe pr e- s ent ence r epor tcont ai ned the di agnos i s of an i ndepende ntps y chi atr i s t–pr es um abl y r efe rr i ng t o an A ugus t3, 1988 l ett erfr om D r . J oel S. D r ey er - - w ho had exa m i ned M r . Spi t znas and t al ked abouthi s m ent al i l l nes s . T he di s tr i ctcour tor der ed M r . Spi t znas t o s er ve s even l i fe s ent ence s and fiv e se n ten c e s o ftw o h u n d re d y e a rs’ im p riso n m e n t fo r h is c rim e s, w ith a ll s e n te n c e s to ru n c o n s e c u tiv e ly. B . St at e C ourtP os t - P l ea Procee di ngs O n D e c e m b e r 2 9 , 1 9 8 8 , M r. S p itzn a s filed a m o tio n to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty p le a , w h ic h th e s ta te d is tr ic t c o u rtd e n ie d a fte r h o ld in g a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . H e att empt ed t o appea l fr om thi s deni al , us i ng a di ffe r entatt or ney than couns el w ho had r epr es ent ed hi m dur i ng the gui l t y pl ea pr ocee di ngs , butthi s new couns el w as s ubs equent l y di s barr ed and M r . Spi t znas l at erdi s cover ed thatthe appe al hadT he O kl ahoma I ndi gentA ppel l at e D efe ns e Sy s t em (O I D S) w as appoi nt ed 10 to re p re se n t M r. S p itzn a s a fter th e Ja n u a ry 2 3 , 1 9 9 6 o rd e r g ra n tin g h im lea v e to a p p e a l o u t o ftim e . U n fo rtu n a tely , the O ID S a tto rn e y filed th e n o tice o fin ten t to appea l and des i gnat i on of r ecor d one dayl at e, r es ul t i ng i n the s econd a ppl i cati on t o fi l e a noti ce ofappea l outof t i m e.

- 15- notbeen pe r fec t ed. O n J anuar y 23, 1996 and aga i n on A pr i l 18, 1996, the O kl ahoma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s ( O C C A ) gr ant ed hi s appl i cati ons t o appea l outof t i m e. 10 O n A p ril 1 6 , 1 9 9 6 , the U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt e n ter e d a n o p in io n in w h ich it ov erturn ed the s tand ard s u sed in O k laho m a law to d eterm ine w h ethe r a d e fe n d a n t is c o m p e te n t to s ta n d tr ia l. Co op e rv . Ok l a h o ma , 5 1 7 U .S . 3 4 8 (1 9 9 6 ). T he Supr eme C our tdet er m i ned thatthe O kl ahoma l aw pr es um i ng thata defendant w as compet entt o s t and tr i al unl es s he pr oved hi s i ncompet ence by cl earand c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e v io la te d d u e p ro c e s s . Id. at354- 69. M r. S p itzn a s, a c tin g th ro u g h c o u n se l, su b se q u e n tlyfiled a p e tit io n fo r w rit o fc e rtio ra ri w ith th e O C C A , in o rd e r to a p p e a l fro m th e d e n ial o fh is m o tio n to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty p lea . H e ra ise d th re e iss u e s. H e c o n ten d e d , firs t, th a t h is tr i al couns el ’ s w ai verof hi s s econd pos t - exami nat i on compet encyhear i ng w as m ade unde ran err oneous under s t andi ng of hi s bur den of pr oof atthe hea r i ng, l at ercl ar i fi ed i n C ooper , a n d th a tth e tr i a l c o u r twa s u n d e rth e s a me m i s under s t andi ng w hen i tas s es s ed hi s compet encyt o pl ead gui l t y . Second, he ar gued thatthe r ecor d di d nots how thathe under s t ood the natur e and- 16-

cons equenc es of w ai vi ng the i ns ani t y defe ns e. Fi nal l y , he cont ended thats ever al o fh is c o n v ic tio n s s h o u ld b e v a c a te d o n th e g ro u n d o fd o u b le p u n is h m e n t. O n Febr uar y 11, 1997, the O C C A i s s ued an unpubl i s hed s um m ar y opi ni on affi r m i ng the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l t y pl ea, a n d d e n y in g h is p e tit io n fo r c e rtio ra ri. O n A pr i l 23, 1997, M r . Spi t znas fi l ed an a ppl i cati on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i n s t at e di s tr i ctcour t . H e r ai s ed s ever al i s s ues , t w o of w hi ch ar e r el evant h e re : (1 ) th e trial c o u rt d e p riv e d h im o fp ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss b y fa ili n g to h o ld a pos t - exami nat i on compet encyhear i ng; and ( 2) hi s tr i al couns el w as c o n stitu tio n a llyin e ffe c tiv e in , am o n g o th e r th in g s, c o e rc in g M r. S p itzn a s in to p lea d in g g u ilty , an d m isin fo rm in g M r. S p itzn a s o n c lea r p o in ts o flaw . T h e sta te di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed r el i ef, fi ndi ng thatthe i s s ues r ai s ed, exce ptfori neffecti ve as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el , coul d have a nd s houl d have be en r ai s ed as par tof M r. S p itzn a s’s d ire c t ap p e a l, an d th a t M r. S p itzn a s fa iled to sh o w c o n stitu tio n a lly d e fe c tiv e p e rfo rm a n c e a n d p reju d ic e fro m h is a p p e lla te c o u n s e l’ s re p re s e n ta tio n . T h e O C C A a ffir m e d , c itin g e s s e n tia lly th e s a m e re a s o n s a s th e tr ia l c o u rt . C . F ederal H abeas P et i t i on O n J anuar y 7, 1998, M r . Spi t znas fi l ed a feder al habea s corpus pet i t i on, r ai s i ng eac h of the el even i s s ues he had pr es ent ed on ce r t i or ar i appea l and i n the s t at e pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef pr ocee di ngs , hi s el eventh i s s ue bei ng i neffecti ve- 17-

as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el . H e r eques t ed an e vi dent i ar y hear i ng, w hi ch the d is tr ic t c o u rtd e n ie d .

1. F i rs tO rder D eny i ng H abeas R el i ef O n O ct ober19, 1998, the magi s tr at e j udge as s i gned t o the ca s e ent er ed a r epor tand r ecomm endati on, r ecomm endi ng thatM r . Spi t znas ’ s habea s pet i t i on be d e n ied . In h is N o v e m b e r 2 , 1 9 9 8 , o bjec tio n s to th e m a g istra te ju d g e ’s r e p o rt, M r . Spi t znas r ai s ed t w o s i gni fi cantobj ecti ons . H e ar gued that , contr ar y t o the m agi s tr at e j udge’ s fi ndi ng, ther e had be en no “s econd pos t - exami nat i on c o m p e ten c y h e a rin g .” A s p a rt o fh is a rg u m e n t, he c o n ten d e d th a t th e m a g istra te j udge had e rr ed i n fai l i ng t o cons i derhi s cont ent i on thateven i f ther e had be en a “he ar i ng, ” s uch a he ar i ng had bee n conduct ed underthe uncons t i tut i onal “cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence ” s t andar d appl i ed bythe O kl ahoma cour t s pr i ort o the S up rem e C ou rt ’s C ooperdeci s i on. M r . Spi t znas had r ai s ed thi s i s s ue t o the O k la h o m a c o u rt s a n d in h is fe d e ra l h a b e a s p e titio n . M r . Spi t znas al s o chal l enged the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r ecomm endati on c o n c e rn in g h is c la im th a t c o u n s e l tr ic k e d o r c o e rc e d h im in to p le a d in g g u ilty. T hi s cl ai m w as al s o as s er t ed both befor e the s t at e court s and i n hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on. D ur i ng the cour s e of pr ocee di ngs i n the fe der al habea s cour t , and p rio r to th e e n try o fth e m a g istra te ju d g e ’s r e p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n , b o th M r . Spi t znas and the s t at e fi l ed affi davi t s conce r ni ng hi s i neffecti ve as s i s t ance of tr ia l a n d a p p e lla te c o u n s e l is s u e s .- 18-

O n Jan u ary 2 8 , 1 9 9 9 , the d istri ct co u rtad o p ted th e m ag istrate jud g e’s re c o m m e n d a tio n , su m m a rily rejec ted M r. S p itzn a s’s o bjec tio n s, a n d d e n ied h is h a b e a s p e titio n . M r. S p itz n a s a p p e a le d .

2. F i rs tA ppeal O n Febr uar y 16, 2000, w e ent er ed an or derand j udgm entr emandi ng t o the di s tr i ctcour tforan evi dent i ar y hear i ng on t w o of the habe as gr ounds r ai s ed by M r. S p itz n a s . Spi tz nas v. B oone , N o . 9 9 -61 5 8 , 2 0 0 0 W L 1 7 7 4 2 4 (10 th C ir . Feb. 16, 2000) . I n ouror derw e s t at ed, fi r s t , thatw e w er e “c oncer ned w i th the ambi gui t y of the r ecor d r egar di ng w hether[M r . Spi t znas ] r ece i ved a s econd det er m i nat i on of compet encybefor e ent er i ng hi s gui l t y pl ea. ” Id. a t* 1 . We not ed the ambi gui t i es i n the s t at e di s tr i ctcour t ’ s J ul y 22, 1988 or derfi ndi ng that M r . Spi t znas had r egai ned compet encyt o s t and tr i al . W e w er e al s o conce r ned thatthe r ecor d, as devel oped t o thatpoi nt , di d notal l ow adequa t e cons i der at i on of M r. S p itzn a s’s c laim th a t h is tria l co u n se l h a d m isle d h im in to e n ter in g a g u ilty pl ea. W e ther efor e r emanded w i th i ns tr ucti ons t o hol d an evi dent i ar y hear i ng re g a rd in g th e s e m a tte rs .

3. Evi de nt i ar y H e ar i ng o n R e m and T he di s tr i ctcour tappoi nt ed a feder al publ i c defendert o r epr es ent M r . Spi t znas atthe evi dent i ar y hear i ng, w hi ch w as hel d on J une 26, 2000. A tthe h e a rin g , M r. S p itzn a s’s n e w c o u n se l ca lled n o w itn e ss e s b u t h e w a s p e rm itt e d to i ntr oduce s ever al new exhi bi t s i nt o the habe as r ecor d, w i thoutobj ecti on. O ne of- 19-

thes e n ew ex h ibit s w as a ce rt ifi ed co p y o f a let ter ad d resse d to M r. S p it zn as’s tri al cou nsel from D r. Joel S . D rey er, a psy chiatri st . T he lett er w as dat ed A ug ust 3, 1988, w hi ch i s l es s than t w o w eeks aft erthe s t at e tr i al cour tfound M r . Spi t znas compet entt o pr ocee d. M r . Spi t znas ’ s couns el atthe evi dent i ar y hear i ng s t at ed thats he had di s cover ed the l ett erw hi l e goi ng thr ough the s t at e courtfi l e and that it h a d n o t p re v io u s ly b e e n e n te re d in to th e re c o rd o fth e h a b e a s c a s e . I n the l ett er , D r . D r ey erpr ovi ded hi s di agnos t i c i m pr es s i on of M r . Spi t znas as havi ng “O r gani c B r ai n D amage w i th di s as s oci at i ve epi s odes of t empora l l obe epil epsy t y pe. ” H e no t ed thatM r. S pit znas suffe red from blackou t s, hal l uci nat i ons , and s ever e mi gr ai ne hea dache s . N ot i ng an epi s ode thatoccurr ed befor e the cr i m es w i th w hi ch M r . Spi t znas w as char ged, i n w hi ch M r . Spi t znas w a s v icio u sly k ick e d in th e h e a d a n d h it w ith a b o ttl e in h is e y e , ca u sin g h im to lo se th e e y e , D r. D re y e r sta ted “ I stro n g ly fe e l w h a t w e h a v e h e re is a n o rg a n ic b ra in s y n d ro m e th a t h a s c a u s e d th is m a n to a c t o u t in th e w a y th a t h e d id .” D r. D re y e r “ v e ry stro n g ly ” re c o m m e n d e d th a t M r. S p itzn a s b e su bjec ted to “a pr oces s of neur ol ogi cal and neur ops y chometr i c batt er y t es t i ng. ” I ti s undi s put ed thatthe r ecomm ended t es t s w er e neve rper for m ed. A nother of the exhi bi t s ent er ed atthe evi dent i ar y hear i ng w as a more cont empora neous affi davi tfr om D r . D r ey er , dat ed M ay 18, 2000. I n the affi davi t , he s t at ed that aft erhe pr ovi ded M r . Spi t znas ’ s tr i al couns el w i th the l ett erdes cr i bi ng M r . Spi t znas ’ s condi t i on and r ecomm endi ng fur thert es t i ng, couns el never- 20-

cont act ed D r . D r ey eragai n. M r . Spi t znas ’ s tr i al couns el t es t i fi ed atthe evi dent i ar y hear i ng thathe had no mem or y of r ece i vi ng the l ett er s fr om D r. D re y e r. 4. Se c ond Rem and A ft erthe di s tr i ctcour thel d the evi dent i ar y hear i ng, i ttr ans m i t t ed the r ecor d of the hea r i ng t o thi s cour t . O n J une 5, 2003, not i ng thats er i ous am b igu ities rem aine d in the ca se, w e e n tered an o rde r req u ir ing the d istri ct co u rt t o m ake fur therfac tual fi ndi ngs on the fol l ow i ng i s s ues , bas ed on the evi dence pr es ent ed atthe evi dent i ar y hear i ng: 1) W hether , aft erpr evi ous l y havi ng been de cl ar ed i ncompet entbut capa bl e of a chi evi ng compet ency , Pet i t i onerw as affor ded a s econd det er m i nat i on of compet encypr i ort o ent er i ng hi s gui l t y pl ea or w hetherPet i t i onerw ai ved a s econd c om pet encyhear i ng; 2) W hether Pet i t i oneres t abl i s hed thathe w as l egal l y i ns ane a tthe t i m e he comm i t t ed the ac t s i n ques t i on; 3) W hetherPet i t i onerr ece i ved i neffecti ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el ; and 4) W hetherPet i t i oner re c e iv e d in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o fa p p e llate c o u n se l. Spi tz nas v. B oone , N o. 99- 6158, or derat6 ( 10th C i r . J une 5, 2003) . A ft erthe di s tr i ctcour tr efe rr ed the mat t erback t o the magi s tr at e j udge forfur ther pr ocee di ngs , the magi s tr at e j udge or der ed the s t at e t o s uppl ementthe r ecor d w i th, among ot herthi ngs , a ce r t i fi ed copyof the or i gi nal r ecor d of the s t at e di s tr i ct co u rtca se. T h is sup p lem en tat ion estab li sh ed co n clus ively that D r. D rey er’s A ugus t3, 1988 l ett erw as i ncl uded i n the s t at e courtfi l e, as par tof the p re -se n ten c e in v e stig a tio n re p o rt.- 21-

In h is s e c o n d su p p lem e n tal re p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n , the m a g istra te j udge found, as t o i s s ues per t ai ni ng t o the s econd pos t - exami nat i on compet ency hear i ng, that Pet i t i onerw as gi ven a s econd c om pet encyhear i ng atw hi ch Pet i t i oner , hi s defe ns e att or ney , and the pr os ecut orappea r ed i n open cour t , thatthe defens e and the pr os ecuti on s t i pul at ed onl y t o the cont ent s of the eva l uat i on r epor ti n w hi ch Pet i t i onerw as det er m i ned t o be compet entt o s t and tr i al and t o the t es t i m ony thatthe i ndi vi dual pr epar i ng the r epor tw oul d gi ve i n the s econd c om pet encyhear i ng, a n d th a t P e tit io n e r w a s d e ter m in e d to b e c o m p e ten t to sta n d trial o n ly aft era s peci fi c i nqui r y i nt o Pet i t i oner ’ s compet encyw as under t aken b y th e tr ia l ju d g e w h o c o n d u c te d th e s e c o n d c o m p e te n c y h e a ri n g . A s t o the i s s ue of M r . Spi t znas ’ s l egal i ns ani t y atthe t i m e of the offens e, th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e fo u n d , in tera lia , tha t “D r. D re y e r’s re p o rt d o e s n o t co n tain concl us i ve fi ndi ngs as t o Pet i t i oner ’ s s ani ty ori ns ani ty atthe t i m e of the o ffe n se ,” a n d th a t all th e e v id e n c e , tak e n to g e th e r, d id n o t cr e a te a re a so n a b le d o u b t as t o M r. S p it zn as’s sa n ity . T h e m ag istrate jud g e m en ti o n ed D r. D rey er’s r ecomm endati on thatfur thert es t s be conduc t ed, butnot ed D r . D r ey er ’ s s t at ement th a t, ev e n ifth e se tes ts w e re c o n d u c ted a n d th e re su lts w e re n e g a tiv e , h e w o u ld s t i l l c o n c l u d e th a tM r . S p i t z n a s wa s s u ffe r i n g fr o m a n o r g a n i c b r a i n s y n d r o me thatcaus ed hi m t o actas he di d. T he magi s tr at e j udge found no mer i tt o the r e ma i n d e ro fM r . S p i t z n a s ’ s a r g u me n t s , o n wh i c h we h a d o r d e r e d fi n d i n g s . He re c o m m e n d e d th a t th e h a b e a s p e titio n b e d e n ie d . M r . Spi t znas fi l ed obj ecti ons t o the s econd s uppl ement al r epor tand re c o m m e n d a tio n . A m o n g o th e r a rg u m e n ts, h e c o n ten d e d th a t (1 ) th e m a g istra te- 22-

j udge had fai l ed t o addr es s w hetherthe s t at e j udge’ s det er m i nat i on of compet ency w as bas ed upon a fl aw ed, pr e- C oopersta n d a rd o fp ro o f ; an d (2 ) th e m a g istra te j udge made no fi ndi ngs w i th r egar d t o the fa i l ur e of M r . Spi t znas ’ s tr i al couns el t o i nves t i gat e hi s i ns ani t y atthe t i m e of the offens e, as r ecomm ended by D r. D re y e r in h is le tter to c o u n se l. M r. S p itzn a s c o n ten d e d th a t h e w a s e n tit led to re lie fa s to e a c h o fth e s e is s u e s . In a n o rd e r d a ted Ja n u a ry 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , the d istric t co u rt a d o p ted th e m a g istra te ju d g e ’s re p o rta n d re c o m m e n d a tio n in its e n tir e ty, an d d e n ie d th e h a b e a s p e titio n . T he di s tr i ctcour tdi d nots peci fi cal l y m ent i on M r . Spi t znas ’ s ar gum ent conce r ni ng the magi s tr at e j udge’ s fai l ur e t o addr es s the i s s ue he ha d r ai s ed conce r ni ng the bur den of pr oof atthe compet encyhear i ng. A s t o the i s s ue i nvol vi ng fur theri nves t i gat i on of an i ns ani t y defe ns e, the di s tr i ctcour ts t at ed that thati s s ue “ha s neverbeen r ai s ed by pet i t i oneras par tof hi s i neffecti ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m . ” O n A pr i l 14, 2004, w e ent er ed an or ders um m ar i l y affi r m i ng the deni al of habe as corpus r el i ef, fors ubs t ant i al l y the r eas ons s t at ed i n the m agis trat e j ud ge’s and d i stri ctcou rt ’s decis i on s.

5. R ul e 60( b) M ot i on O n J ul y 6, 2005, M r . Spi t znas fi l ed i n fede r al di s tr i ctcour ta R ul e 60( b) ( 4) and ( 6) m ot i on s eeki ng r el i ef fr om the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s J anuar y 26, 2004, j udgm ent , and a mot i on forl eave t o amend hi s habea s pet i t i on under Fed. R . C i v. P. 15( b) . I n hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, M r . Spi t znas cont ended thatthe- 23-

d istric t co u rt d e n ied h im d u e p ro c e ss b y im p ro p e rly fa ili n g to ru le o n th e m e rits of t w o of hi s habea s cl ai m s . T he fi r s tcl ai m w as thathi s s t at e tr i al couns el had fai l ed t o i nves t i gat e hi s i ns ani t y defe ns e befor e w ai vi ng i t . T hi s cl ai m w as bas ed on the l ett erfr om D r . D r ey er , w hi ch M r . Spi t znas cont ended s houl d have p ro m p ted h is c o u n se l to fu rth e r in v e stig a te th e p o ss ib le a ss e rtio n o fa n in sa n ity d e fe n se o n h is b e h a lf . In o p p o sitio n to th e d istric t co u rt’s fin d in g th a t th is c laim had neve rbeen pa r tof hi s habea s pr ocee di ng, M r . Spi t znas ar gued, i n the al t er nat i ve, that( 1) ei therthi s cl ai m had bee n par tof hi s i neffecti ve as s i s t ance cl ai m al l al ong, or( 2) i thad bee n tr i ed atthe evi dent i ar y hear i ng by cons entof th e p a rt ie s , a n d s h o u ld th e re fo re h a v e b e e n a d d e d to h is c a s e u n d e r R u le 1 5 (b ). M r. S pit znas al so argued that the d i stri ctcou rthad i m properl y fai l ed to add res s hi s cl ai m thathi s s econd pos t - exami nat i on compet encyhear i ng had bee n c o n d u c ted u sin g a n im p ro p e r sta n d a rd o fp ro o f . A g a in , h e a ss e rte d b o th th a t th is iss u e h a d a lw a y s b e e n p a rt o fh is h a b e a s p e tit io n a n d th a t th e d istric t co u rt sh o u ld h a v e a m e n d e d h is p e titio n u n d e r R u le 1 5 (b ) t o in c lu d e it. T he di s tr i ctcour tent er ed a s um m ar y or derdeny i ng both the R ul e 60( b) m ot i on and the appl i cati on forl eave t o amend t he peti t i on. T he or ders t at ed, fo r a n a lysis , o n ly th a t th e 6 0 (b ) m o tio n h a d b e e n file d w e ll b e y o n d o n e y e a r. M r. S p itz n a s tim e ly ap p e a le d fro m th is o rd e r, a n d w e g ra n te d h im a C O A .- 24- III . A N A L Y S IS T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed M r . Spi t znas ’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, w i thout d e te rm in in g w h e th e r i t r e p re s e n te d a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 4 h a b e a s p e titio n . O u r first ta sk , the re fo re , is to c o n sid e r e a c h o fth e iss u e s ra ise d in th e m o tio n in or dert o det er m i ne w hetheri tr epr es ent s a s econd ors ucce s s i ve peti t i on, a “tr ue” R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, ora mi xed mot i on. Forr eas ons w e w i l l expl ai n, thi s m ot i on i s a “ m i x e d ” m o t i o n , a n d w e w i l l d e a l w i th i ta c c o r d i n g l y. A . “St anda r d ofPro offor C ompet e nc y” I s s ue I n thi s i s s ue, M r . Spi t znas ar gues thatnei therthe magi s tr at e j udge northe di s tr i ctcour teveraddr es s ed hi s ar gum entthatthe O kl ahoma tr i al cour templ oy ed the w r ong s t andar d of pr oof w hen det er m i ni ng w hetherhe had r egai ned c o mp e t e n c y t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n th e p r o c e e d i n g s r e s u l t i n g i n h i s g u i l t y p l e a . As we have de t ai l ed i n the fa cts ecti on of thi s opi ni on, the r ecor d r evea l s thatthe sta n d a rd o fp ro o fc laim w a s ra ise d in h is h a b e a s p e tit io n a n d w a s c o n tin u o u sly asse rt ed thro u g h o u t th e h ab ea s p roc ee d ing s. N o tw ith stan d ing M r. S p it zn as’s cont i nued as s er t i on of thi s cl ai m , how ever , the di s tr i ctcour tneverm ade ar ul i ng o n it. M r. S p itzn a s’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e d istric t co u rt fa iled to c o n sid e r o n e o fh is h a b e a s c laim s re p re se n ts a “ tru e ” 6 0 (b ) c laim . It as se rts a d e fe c t in th e in teg rity o fth e fe d e ra l h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g s . See G onz al ez , 125 S. C t . at2648. T he defect li es n o t i n the d istri ct co u rt ’s reso luti o n o f th e m erit s o f th e c o m p eten cy stan d ard- 25-

cl ai m ( s i nce i tneverr eac hed thos e mer i t s ) , buti n i t s fai l ur e t o m ake a ny r ul i ng o n a c la im th a t w a s p ro p e rl y p re s e n te d in M r. S p itz n a s ’s h a b e a s p e titio n . H avi ng det er m i ned thatthi s cl ai m r epr es ent s a “tr ue” c l ai m forR ul e 60( b) re lief , w e m u st n e x t d e ter m in e w h e th e r M r. S p itzn a s is e n tit led to a C O A a s to thi s cl ai m . A C O A m ay onl y i s s ue “i f the appl i canthas m ade as 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) . T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed M r . Spi t znas ’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on beca us e i tdet er m i ned that the mot i on w as unt i m el y . I n cas es l i ke thi s one, w her e the dec i s i on appea l ed fro m in v o lv e s a p ro c e d u ra l ru lin g o fth e d istric t co u rt, a C O A m a y o n ly iss u e if

“ th e p riso n e r sh o w s, a t lea st, th a t ju rists o fre a so n w o u ld fin d it d e b a tab le w hetherthe peti t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtand thatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe di s tr i ctcour tw as corr ect i n i t s pr ocedur al r ul i ng. ” Sl ack v . M cD ani el , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ). We p r e v i o u s l y g r a n t e d a CO A t o M r . S p i t z n a s o n th i s c l a i m. T h a tCO A, how ever , di d notaddr es s w hetheri tw as debat abl e w hetherthe di s tr i ctcour tw as c o rre c t in its p ro c e d u ra l ru lin g . W e n o w d e ter m in e th a t th is p ro c e d u ra l issu e is in fa c t d e b a tab le. M r. S p itzn a s b ro u g h t h is R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n p u rsu a n t to s ubs ecti ons ( 4) and ( 6) of thatr ul e. T he one- y eart i m e l i m i t at i on ci t ed by the di s tr i ctcour tdoes notappl y t o a mot i on m ade unde rR ul e 60( b) ( 4) , w hi ch may be b ro u g h t a t a n y tim e . S e e , e.g ., O rn e r v . S h a la la , 3 0 F . 3 d 1 3 0 7 , 1 3 1 0 (10 th C ir . 1994) . N ordoes i tappl y t o a R ul e 60( b) ( 6) m ot i on, w hi ch mustbe br oughtA R ul e 60( b) ( 6) m ot i on m ay notbe us ed as a vehi cl e t o r e- al l ege 60( b) ( 4) 11 a lle g a tio n s . S e e S ta te B a n ko f S . U ta h v . G led h ill(In re G led h ill ) , 76 F. 3d 1070, 1080 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( s t at i ng R ul e 60( b) ( 6) r el i ef may notbe pr emi s ed on one of the g rou n d s en u m era ted in clau se (b )(1) thro u g h (b)(5 )).

- 26- w ith in a re a s o n a b le tim e . See F ed . R . C iv. P. 60 (b). T h u s clarified , w e re affirm ou r gr ant of C O A t o M r. S pit znas. Ha v i n g g r a n t e d a CO A o n th i s “ tr u e ” g r o u n d fo rRu l e 6 0 ( b ) r e l i e f , we m us tnextdet er m i ne w hetherthe di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n deny i ng M r . Spi t znas R ul e 60( b) r el i ef on thi s cl ai m . Forthe r eas ons s t at ed above , w e conc l ude that th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in d e ter m in in g th a t th e m o tio n w a s tim e -b a rre d m e re ly b e c a u s e it w a s a R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n b ro u g h t m o re th a n a y e a r a fte r j u d g m e n t. R emand i s ther efor e r equi r ed forthe di s tr i ctcour tt o r es ol ve the fol l ow i ng fac tual and l egal i s s ues i n the fi r s ti ns t ance : (1 ) Is M r. S p itzn a s e n tit led to re liefu n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (b )(4 ) a s to h is as s er t i on thatthe di s tr i ctcour tfai l ed t o cons i derhi s uncons t i tut i onal bur den of p r o o fc l a i m? ( 2) I f M r . Spi t znas i s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde rR ul e 60( b) ( 4) , i s he ent i t l ed t o r el i ef under R ul e 60( b) ( 6) ? I n ans w er i ng thi s ques t i on, the di s tr i ct 11 c o u rt sh o u ld c o n sid e r b o th w h e th e r th e R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ) m o tio n w a s b ro u g h t w ith in a r eas onabl e t i m e and w hetherM r . Spi t znas has s how n ent i t l ementt o r el i ef unde r the rul e.- 27-

( 3) I f M r . Spi t znas i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde rei therr ul e, i n the for m of e x p re ss c o n sid e ra tio n o fh is “ w ro n g sta n d a rd o fp ro o f” c laim , is h e e n tit led to h a b e a s r e l i e fo n th a tu n d e r l y i n g c l a i m?

B. “Fai l ur e t o I nve s t i ga t e I ns ani t y D e fe ns e ” I s s ue M r. S p it zn as a lso a rgu ed in h is R u le 60 (b) m o ti o n that the d istri ct co u rt fa iled to a d d re ss h is c laim th a t trial c o u n se l fa iled to in v e stig a te a n in sa n ity defe ns e befor e r ai s i ng i t . I n i t s or derdeny i ng habea s r el i ef, dat ed J anuar y 26, 2004, the di s tr i ctcour ts peci fi cal l y r ej ect ed thi s cl ai m , fi ndi ng thati thad neve r been partof M r. S pit znas’s hab eas pet i t i on and w as i n fac trai sed fo r the fir st t i m e i n hi s obj ecti ons t o the magi s tr at e j udge’ s s econd s uppl ement al r epor tand r ecomm endati on. D es pi t e the nec es s ar y i m pl i cati on of thi s fi ndi ng, the di s tr i ct cour tdi d notexpr es s l y r ul e thatthi s cl ai m w as a s econd ors ucce s s i ve appl i cati on fo r § 2 2 5 4 h a b e a s re lie f . N o tw ith stan d ing the lac k o f a n ex p ress find ing , w e b eli ev e the d istri ct co u rt cou l d h ave reached no othercon cl usi on than that M r. S pit znas’s cl ai m w as a su c c e ss iv e h a b e a s c laim . W e a g re e w ith th a t co n c lu sio n . M r. S p itzn a s’s c laim th a t h is tria l atto rn e y fa iled to in v e stig a te th e p o ss ib ili ty o fa ss e rtin g a n in sa n ity defe ns e i s bas ed on hi s al l egati on thathi s att or ney fai l ed t o fol l ow up on D r . D r ey er ’ s l ett er . T he cl ai m , how ever , di d nots ur fac e unt i l aft erthe l ett erw as ent er ed i nt o evi dence atthe evi dent i ar y hear i ng, y ear s aft erM r . Spi t znas had fi l ed hi s fi r s tfede r al habea s pet i t i on. T hi s w as a new cl ai m bas ed on new fac t s that- 28-

d id n o t r e la te b a c k to th e filin g d a te o fth e fe d e ra l h a b e a s p e titio n . See Uni t ed Stat es v. E spi noz a- Saenz , 2 3 5 F . 3 d 5 0 1 , 5 0 3 & n . 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). B eca us e M r . Spi t znas ’ s fai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e cl ai m cons t i tut es a s ucce s s i ve hab eas pet i t i on , his reas ser t i on of thatcl ai m i n h i s R ule 60(b) m oti on , i n the guis e of an a t t ack on the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s r ul i ng thatthe cl ai m coul d notbe cons i der ed, i s i t s e l fi n r e a l i t y a s e c o n d a t t e m p tt o a s s e r ta s u c c e s s i v e h a b e a s c l a i m . We ther efor e cons tr ue hi s appea l as an appl i cati on t o fi l e a s ucce s s i ve peti t i on, and m us tdeci de w hethert o gr antM r . Spi t znas author i zati on t o fi l e a s ucce s s i ve a p p lic a tio n a s to th is c la im . I n or dert o r ece i ve author i zati on t o fi l e a s ucce s s i ve appl i cati on, an a p p lica n t m u st m a k e a p rim a fa c ie s h o w in g th a t h e sa tisfies th e c riter ia in § 2 2 4 4 (b )( 2 ). See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b )(3 )(C ). T h a t is, h e m u st s h o w th a t: ( i ) the fa ctual pr edi cat e forthe cl ai m coul d nothave be en di s cover ed pr evi ous l y thr 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 by cl 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 the appl i cantgui l t y of the under l y i ng offe ns e. 28 U . S. C . § 2244( b) ( 2) ( B ) . W e nee d notcons i derw hetherM r . Spi t znas m eet s the second el em ent of this i nq uir y , si nce the t esti s conjuncti ve an d h e fai l s the fir st el ement . T he fa ctual pr edi cat e forthi s cl ai m i s D r . D r ey er ’ s l ett er . T hatl ett er h as b ee n co n tai n ed in the stat e d istri ct co u rtfil e sin ce the tim e M r. S p it zn as’s pr e- s ent ence r epor tw as pr epar ed. A l s o, as w e have not ed, M r . Spi t znas ’ s couns el- 29-

m a d e re fe re n c e to th e lette r d u rin g h is s e n ten c in g p ro c e e d in g s, p re su m a b ly in M r . Spi t znas ’ s pr es ence . M r . Spi t znas fai l s t o s how thatthe exe r ci s e of due di l i gence w oul d nothave unc over ed the l ett er , orthe bas i s forhi s cl ai m , pr i or t o the evi dent i ar y hear i ng i n thi s cas e. W e ther efor e denyM r . Spi t znas author i zati on t o fi l e a s ucce s s i ve cl ai m conce r ni ng hi s tr i al att or ney ’ s al l eged fai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e an i ns ani t y defe ns e.

C . D e ni al ofLeav e t o Am e nd W e fu rth e r h o ld th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g M r. S p itzn a s’s m o tio n fo r le a v e to a m e n d h is p e tit io n to a d d th e in sa n ity defe ns e cl ai m . Si nce the cl ai m w as s ucce s s i ve and di d notr el at e bac k t o the fili n g o fth e p e tit io n , the d istric t co u rt h a d n o a u th o rity to p e rm it M r. S p itzn a s to add a ne w gr ound forhabea s r el i ef, and coul d onl y di s m i s s the peti t i on ortr ans fer it to u s fo r c e rt ific a tio n . See C ol em an , 106 F. 3d at341. I V. CO NC L US I ON W e A FFIRM the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s or derdeny i ng M r . Spi t znas l eave t o amend hi s habea s pet i t i on. W e V A C A T E the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on deny i ng R ul e 60( b) re liefo n M r. S p itzn a s’s a ss e rtio n th a t th e d istric t co u rt im p ro p e rly b a rre d h is c laim c o n c e rn in g h is tria l atto rn e y ’s a lleg e d fa ilu re to in v e stig a te a n in sa n ity defe nse. C on strui ng M r. S pit znas’ appli cat i on for C O A on that cl ai m as a r equ est forl eave t o fi l e a s ucce s s i ve appl i cati on for§ 2254 r el i ef a s t o thi s i s s ue, w e D E N Y hi m l eave . W e R E V E R SE thatpor t i on of the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s or der- 30-

d e n y i n g 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) a n d ( 6 ) r e l i e fo n M r . S p i t z n a s ’ s tr u e 6 0 ( b ) c l a i m, a n d RE M AND forfur therpr ocee di ngs i n acc or dance w i th thi s opi ni on.