Court Opinion

ID: 9957840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 15:01:08.98508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:51.983381
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10058    Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 04/05/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10058
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       JOHN O. WILLIAMS,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       STATE OF FLORIDA,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cv-00629-RH-EMT
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10058      Document: 30-1       Date Filed: 04/05/2024     Page: 2 of 4

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10058

       Before ROSENBAUM, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             John Williams appeals the district court’s denial of his Fed-
       eral Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion as an unauthorized sec-
       ond or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. After careful
       review, we affirm.
                                          I.
              In 2009, Williams was convicted in state court of lewd or
       lascivious molestation of a child and attempted lewd or lascivious
       molestation of a child. After unsuccessfully pursuing relief from his
       convictions in state court, Williams filed his first 28 U.S.C. § 2254
       petition in federal court in November 2014, raising claims of inef-
       fective assistance of counsel and other trial errors. The district
       court denied the § 2254 petition with prejudice, and Williams’s ap-
       peal of that judgment ended with the denial of a certificate of ap-
       pealability (COA).
               As relevant here, in October 2022, Williams moved for relief
       from the § 2254 judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
       60(b). He claimed that the judgment should be reopened because
       the underlying state charges had been improperly joined and his
       trial, appellate, and post-conviction counsel were ineffective in fail-
       ing to raise the issue. Previously, in July 2022, we denied Wil-
       liams’s application for leave to file a successive § 2254 petition rais-
       ing these same grounds.
USCA11 Case: 23-10058      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 04/05/2024     Page: 3 of 4

       23-10058               Opinion of the Court                          3

              The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion. The court
       found, among other things, that the motion was not filed within a
       reasonable time from entry of the judgment, that it did not allege
       any error in the § 2254 proceeding that was cognizable under Rule
       60(b), and that it was, in substance, an unauthorized second or suc-
       cessive § 2254 petition.
              Williams appealed, but the district court denied a COA.
       This Court likewise denied a COA to the extent Williams sought
       to appeal the district court’s determination that he could not
       demonstrate an entitlement to Rule 60(b) relief. Nevertheless, we
       noted that no COA was necessary for Williams to appeal the denial
       of his Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive § 2254 peti-
       tion. We consider that issue now.
                                         II.
              Although Rule 60(b) generally permits relief from a § 2255
       judgment, the rule cannot be used to circumvent restraints on fil-
       ing successive § 2254 petitions. Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290,
       1292–94 (11th Cir. 2007). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective
       Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), a prisoner seeking to file a “second
       or successive” § 2254 petition must first file an application with the
       appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district
       court to consider it. See id. at 1294; 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (outlining
       the requirements an applicant must meet to obtain an order au-
       thorizing a successive § 2255 motion). Without authorization from
       a court of appeals, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a
       successive motion. Williams, 510 F.3d at 1295.
USCA11 Case: 23-10058      Document: 30-1       Date Filed: 04/05/2024     Page: 4 of 4

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10058

               Rule 60(b) does not authorize relief when application of that
       rule “would be inconsistent with the restrictions imposed on suc-
       cessive petitions by the AEDPA.” Id. at 1293. A Rule 60(b) motion
       will be “treated as a successive habeas petition if it: (1) seeks to add
       a new ground of relief; or (2) attacks the federal court’s previous
       resolution of a claim on the merits.” Id. at 1293–94 (quoting Gonza-
       lez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 & n.4 (2005)). But Rule 60(b) may
       properly be used to raise a “defect in the integrity of the federal
       habeas proceedings.” Id. at 1294 (quotation marks omitted).
               Here, the district court properly treated Williams’s Rule
       60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition. See
       Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532; Williams, 510 F.3d at 1293–94. In his Rule
       60(b) motion, Williams sought to raise new grounds for habeas re-
       lief—that his charges should have been severed for trial and that his
       attorneys were ineffective for failing to raise that issue. He did not
       raise any defects in the integrity of the federal § 2254 proceeding
       that would be cognizable under Rule 60(b), and, in any event, this
       Court has already denied a COA to appeal on Rule 60(b) grounds.
       See Williams, 510 F.3d at 1294. Because Williams’s initial § 2254
       petition was denied on the merits and he has not received authori-
       zation to bring his new claims in a successive § 2254 petition, hav-
       ing instead been denied authorization to raise similar claims, the
       district court lacked jurisdiction. See id. at 1295. We affirm.
              AFFIRMED.