Background
Ricky Vincent Pendleton filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In 2017, the district court denied that petition as untimely.
Pendleton later sought relief from the 2017 judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), relying on newly discovered evidence concerning the alleged abandonment of his state habeas counsel. The district court concluded that any new habeas claims in the motion constituted an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition. Alternatively, it held that the motion, if treated as a proper Rule 60(b) motion, was untimely under Rule 60(c)(1).
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit concluded that Pendleton’s filing was properly brought under Rule 60(b), rather than as a successive habeas petition, because it challenged the district court’s prior procedural determination that his original § 2254 petition was untimely and that he was not entitled to tolling.
The court nevertheless affirmed the denial of relief. It found no reversible error in treating the motion as one arising under Rule 60(b)(1), which is subject to Rule 60(c)(1)’s one-year deadline, and therefore denying it as untimely. The court also denied Pendleton’s motion for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary and decided the appeal without oral argument.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 60(b) motion challenging a federal habeas court’s prior limitations and tolling rulings is a proper Rule 60(b) motion rather than an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition.
- A motion treated as arising under Rule 60(b)(1) must comply with Rule 60(c)(1)’s one-year filing deadline.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed on the district court’s alternative timeliness ground despite concluding that the filing was properly characterized as a Rule 60(b) motion.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between a true Rule 60(b) motion attacking a procedural ruling in federal habeas proceedings and a successive petition advancing new grounds for habeas relief. Characterizing a filing as a proper Rule 60(b) motion, however, does not excuse compliance with the rule’s applicable deadline.
The unpublished opinion also confirms that a certificate of appealability was unnecessary for this appeal from the denial of Pendleton’s Rule 60(b) motion.