Marcos A. Rivera v. Superintendent Kevin J. Ransom, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Marcos A. Rivera’s Rule 60(b) motion seeking to reopen the denial of his federal habeas petition. The court reached the merits of arguments concerning the absence of an evidentiary hearing and the nonappointment of counsel, while dismissing without prejudice the remaining arguments as an unauthorized successive habeas petition. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

1. A Rule 60(b) motion in a federal habeas case may be decided on the merits when it attacks a defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceeding rather than seeking relief from the underlying state conviction or presenting a habeas claim.
2. The district court was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before dismissing Rivera's habeas petition because his claims were materially undeveloped and unsupported by specific facts.
3. Rivera had no constitutional right to appointed counsel or a federal investigator in these federal habeas proceedings, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint counsel.
4. A Rule 60(b) motion that relitigates claims resolved on the merits, adds new grounds for relief, presents new evidence supporting previously litigated claims, or seeks to vindicate claims attacking the underlying conviction is properly treated as a second or successive habeas petition.
5. A district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of a second or successive § 2254 petition absent authorization from the court of appeals.
6. The court declined to transfer Rivera's successive habeas claims to the Third Circuit because the claims were primarily conclusory, had already been addressed, and did not appear to satisfy the statutory gatekeeping requirements.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rivera's Rule 60(b) arguments challenging the absence of an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel attacked the integrity of the federal habeas proceeding and could be decided on the merits.
2. Whether Rivera's remaining Rule 60(b) arguments, including relitigated constitutional claims, new evidence, and actual-innocence assertions, constituted an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 petition.
3. Whether the successive-petition claims should be transferred to the Third Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
4. Whether Rivera was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

dismissed