VanHorn v. Williams

United States District Court, District of Nevada · September 30, 2025 · No. 2:17-cv-00960

Summary

This United States District Court order denies pro se petitioner Richard L. VanHorn’s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) in his federal habeas corpus proceeding. The court determined that the motion effectively seeks to relitigate the merits of previously denied constitutional claims, which classifies it as a second or successive habeas petition barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) without prior appellate authorization. Consequently, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion and denies it, along with a request for a certificate of appealability.

Court
United States District Court, District of Nevada
Writing for the Court
Richard F. Boulware, II
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, District of Nevada
Decision date
September 30, 2025
Docket number
2:17-cv-00960
Procedural posture
Petitioner filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion seeking relief from judgment; the court denied the motion.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Richard L. VanHorn v. Brian Williams, et al.
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

federal habeas corpussuccessive petitionscivil proceduredue processpost-conviction relief

Practice areas

civil procedureconstitutional lawpost-conviction relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from judgment in a federal habeas case is barred as a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1).
  2. Whether the district court has jurisdiction to consider the Rule 60(b) motion without leave from the appellate court.

Holdings

  1. The court held that the Rule 60(b) motion is to be treated as a second or successive habeas petition and therefore is barred absent leave from the appellate court.

Key quotations

When a Rule 60(b) motion attacks, not the substance of the federal court’s resolution of a claim on the merits, but some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings, then the district court may properly consider the motion. (at 3)

Factual background

In 2013 a Nevada jury convicted VanHorn of sexual assault and lewdness offenses, sentencing him to multiple terms of 35 years to life and 10 years to life. During closing argument the State presented a PowerPoint slide showing VanHorn’s booking photograph overlaid with the word “GUILTY.” VanHorn later filed a federal habeas petition, which was denied, and subsequently moved for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).

Procedural history

VanHorn was convicted in Nevada state court in 2013. He filed a federal habeas petition which was denied in 2023. The Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. In 2025 he filed a Rule 60(b) motion, which this court denied.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…