Proper-standard-for-Rule-60(b)-motion

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This petition concerns the proper standard for evaluating whether a Rule 60(b) motion “alleges” a proper claim for relief from a habeas judgment, and the degree to which Courts of Appeals are limited by the scope of a Certificate of Appealability. In Gonzalez v. Crosby, this Court held that a Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from a habeas judgment is proper if it “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.” Petitioner Chris Gilkers filed a Rule 60(b) motion based on a defect that occurred in his state post-conviction proceedings, which served as the foundation for his federal habeas proceeding. The district court construed Mr. Gilkers’s motion as an unauthorized successive habeas petition and dismissed it. In affirming the district court’s decision, the Fifth Circuit imposed an unduly high threshold for “alleging” a proper Rule 60(b) claim and improperly engaged in a merits-based analysis to reach its conclusion. The court also exceeded the scope of the COA that was granted, which was limited to the issue of whether the district court erred in its construction of Mr. Gilkers’s motion. As a result of its unnecessary and improperly broad analysis, the Fifth Circuit generated a fractured but precedential opinion that will cause confusion and inconsistencies for countless litigants in the future. The questions presented are: 1. Did the Fifth Circuit violate Petitioner’s due process rights by analyzing the merits of his claims in determining whether his Rule 60(b) motion was properly construed as a successive habeas petition? 2. Did the Fifth Circuit violate Petitioner’s due process rights by deciding issues that were outside the scope of the Certificate of Appealability that was granted in his case? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit improperly apply this Court’s holding in Gonzalez v. Crosby? ii