Summary
This Memorandum Opinion and Order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia addresses a pro se prisoner’s Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from a prior habeas corpus dismissal. The court determines that the motion constitutes an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition and lacks jurisdiction to review it under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Consequently, the court dismisses the motion without prejudice, noting that any further attempts must first obtain authorization from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Shaw’s Rule 60(b) motion is a successive §2254 petition that requires pre‑filing authorization from the Fourth Circuit.
- Whether the district court has jurisdiction to consider the motion absent such authorization.
- Whether the July 20, 2010 judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4).
Holdings
- The motion is a successive habeas petition and therefore must be filed only after obtaining pre‑filing authorization from the Fourth Circuit.
- The district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Rule 60(b) motion because petitioner failed to obtain the required pre‑filing authorization.
- The judgment is not void; Shaw has not shown lack of personal jurisdiction, subject‑matter jurisdiction, or due‑process violations sufficient to render the judgment void.
Key quotations
“Rule 60(b) motions that do not rely on new rules of constitutional law or newly discovered facts, “although labeled [] Rule 60(b) motion{s], [are] in substance [] successive habeas petition[s] and should be treated accordingly.”” (at 531)
“The Court dismissed Shaw’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion as a successive §2254 petition over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization from the Fourth Circuit.” (at 2-4)
Factual background
Petitioner Emmanuel King Shaw was convicted in Virginia of two counts of abduction, robbery, armed burglary and related firearm charges. The jury relied on victim identification testimony, including descriptions of the assailant’s clothing, to find Shaw guilty. Shaw later argued that the state court’s judgment was void because the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof on identity and that respondent’s counsel misstated material facts.
Procedural history
Shaw filed a Rule 60(b)(4) motion in July 2024 seeking relief from a July 2010 judgment. The court dismissed it as a successive habeas petition. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of pre‑filing authorization. Shaw again filed a Rule 60(b)(3)/(b)(4) motion, which the district court again dismissed for the same reason.