Kevin J. Barker v. Norm Robinson, Warden, London Correctional Institution

Summary

In this Report and Recommendations, the magistrate judge recommends denying Kevin J. Barker’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) seeking relief from the judgment in his habeas corpus case. The court concludes that the prior judgment properly treated Barker’s resentencing as a new judgment and that his claims were subject to ordinary procedural defenses, including procedural default and state-law res judicata. The court also recommends denying a certificate of appealability and certifying that any appeal would be objectively frivolous.

Holdings

1. The motion was a proper Rule 60(b) motion rather than a second or successive habeas petition because it challenged an alleged defect in the original federal judgment.
2. The fact that a resentencing resulted in a new judgment did not require the State or the federal court to disregard ordinary defenses, including state res judicata and procedural default.
3. Barker was not entitled to relief under any asserted Rule 60(b) provision. His Rule 60(b)(1) request was untimely, and he did not establish that the judgment was void or that any other reason justified relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Barker's Rule 60(b) motion was actually a second or successive habeas petition requiring authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
2. Whether the prior federal judgment improperly failed to treat Barker's 2016 resentencing as a new judgment and thereby denied him one full merits review.
3. Whether Barker was entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1), (4), or (6), including whether the Rule 60(b)(1) request was timely.
4. Whether a certificate of appealability should issue and whether an appeal should be certified as objectively frivolous for purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis.

Disposition

other