Summary
This memorandum and order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska addresses a pro se prisoner's motions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, a certificate of appealability, and relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court grants the request to proceed in forma pauperis but denies the Rule 60(b) motion and certificate of appealability, finding that the motion merely attacks previous rulings rather than presenting new claims or extraordinary circumstances warranting relief. The order clarifies that while the district court denied the certificate, the petitioner may still request one from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Rule 60(b) motion presents a claim that makes it a second or successive habeas petition subject to AEDPA restrictions.
- Whether the district court may deny relief under Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) and deny a certificate of appealability where the petitioner failed to show extraordinary circumstances.
Holdings
- The motion does not assert any claim and therefore is not a second or successive habeas petition subject to AEDPA restrictions.
- The court may deny relief because the petitioner failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances; denial of a certificate of appealability does not bar a new appeal.
Key quotations
“The Court concludes that Petitioner’s motion does not assert any claims, but rather attacks the Court’s previous ruling. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion is properly considered as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).” (at 1)
Factual background
Petitioner was convicted and filed a habeas petition that was dismissed. He now seeks relief under Rule 60(b) alleging the district court applied an improper standard and violated his First Amendment rights, and he contends the dismissal should be set aside.
Procedural history
The district court entered a Dismissal Order on March 17, 2025. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on April 17, 2025, then moved for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and for a certificate of appealability and rehearing. The court considered the Rule 60(b) motion and denied relief, also denying the certificate of appealability.