Silva v. Keyser

Background

After a 2013 jury trial in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, Santos Carrero Silva was convicted of second-degree murder and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The prosecution had argued during closing arguments that Silva was motivated to kill partly because he was frustrated with his living conditions, which the prosecution described as a “hovel,” and it introduced photographs of those conditions.

Silva’s direct appeal challenged, among other things, the prosecution’s closing argument. The Appellate Division affirmed his convictions, ruling that the challenges were not preserved and that any misconduct did not amount to reversible error. The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.

Silva then filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In 2017, this Court denied that petition. It ruled that Silva had not exhausted his state remedies, that the state court’s ruling rested on an adequate and independent state-law ground, and that his due-process challenge to the prosecution’s closing argument failed on the merits. The Second Circuit later denied Silva’s request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal.

Silva’s Rule 60(b) motion

Silva, who was representing himself, filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) seeking to vacate the earlier denial of his habeas petition. Rule 60(b)(6) is a provision that allows relief from a final judgment for another reason that justifies relief, but only in extraordinary circumstances. A proper Rule 60(b) motion challenges the fairness or integrity of the earlier federal proceeding. It may not be used to present a new challenge to the underlying state conviction.

Silva relied on the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Andrew v. White. He argued that the decision established that the prosecution’s closing argument violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by exposing the jury to prejudicial information about his alleged motive and living conditions.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Silva’s filing was, in substance, a second or successive habeas petition. Silva was relying on an intervening decision about the legal rule governing his constitutional claim, rather than identifying an error in the integrity of the earlier federal habeas proceeding. Treating such a filing as a Rule 60(b) motion would avoid the restrictions that federal law places on successive habeas petitions.

The court also explained that Andrew did not show that the earlier decision in Silva’s case was erroneous. In Andrew, the lower courts had not considered the merits of the petitioner’s due-process claim because they concluded that the claim was not based on clearly established federal law. The Supreme Court explained that earlier precedent recognizing that prosecutorial misconduct can violate due process supplied clearly established law. By contrast, this Court had considered Silva’s due-process claim on the merits and had concluded that the alleged misconduct did not substantially prejudice him and did not infect the trial with unfairness.

A court receiving a Rule 60(b) motion that is actually a successive habeas petition may transfer it to the court of appeals for possible authorization or deny the portion attacking the conviction as outside Rule 60(b)’s scope. The court chose the latter option here.

Disposition

The court denied Silva’s motion as beyond the scope of Rule 60(b) and stated that the motion was, in any event, without merit. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Silva had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to close all pending motions.

Classification

This is a procedural order. The court denied a motion to reopen a prior habeas proceeding because it was an improper successive habeas challenge and outside Rule 60(b)’s scope; it did not decide a new challenge to Silva’s convictions on the merits.