Harrison v. Walsh
- Richard Berman
- 1:06-cv-13328
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Harrison v. Walsh, Judge Berman requested transfer of Harrison’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion to the Second Circuit as a successive habeas petition.
Tony Harrison’s 2022 request to reopen his earlier challenge to his New York convictions was sent for authorization review by the Second Circuit rather than decided by the district court.
What happened
In Harrison v. Walsh, Tony Harrison, representing himself, asked the court to reopen his earlier petition challenging his New York convictions. He relied on Rule 60(b)(6) and alleged newly discovered problems with DNA evidence and his consecutive sentences.
The court determined that the 2022 motion attacked the same convictions as Harrison’s earlier petition, which the court had denied in 2007. Because the motion was therefore a second or later habeas petition, Harrison first needed permission from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Judge Berman concluded that the district court could not consider the motion without that permission. The court requested that the clerk transfer it to the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, mail Harrison a copy of the decision, and close the case.
The detailed version
- Harrison v. Walsh · No. 1:06-cv-13328
- Richard Berman
- Oct. 4, 2022
Background
Tony Harrison filed a motion while representing himself under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), which permits relief from a final judgment for extraordinary reasons. He asked the court to vacate the judgment and reopen his earlier petition challenging his 2003 New York state convictions. Harrison alleged, among other things, that DNA evidence had been mishandled and that his consecutive sentences were illegal.
In 2006, Harrison had filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging those convictions. The district court denied that petition on September 27, 2007. The earlier decision relied on procedural grounds, including procedural default, failure to raise a federal due-process claim in state court, and failure to preserve a jury-instruction argument.
Legal standard
A Rule 60(b) motion that raises a substantive claim previously rejected in a petition challenging state custody is treated as a second or successive habeas petition. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a person must first obtain authorization from the appropriate federal appeals court before filing a second or successive habeas petition in a district court. Without that authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition.
The Second Circuit has held that when such a petition is filed in a district court without the required authorization, the district court should transfer it to the court of appeals in the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The court also noted that filings by people without lawyers must be read liberally.
Analysis and ruling
The court found that Harrison’s 2022 motion challenged the same 2003 convictions as his 2006 petition. Although Harrison labeled the filing a Rule 60(b)(6) motion, the court determined that it attacked the same judgment as the earlier habeas petition and was therefore properly treated as a second or successive habeas petition.
Because Harrison had not obtained authorization from the Second Circuit, the district court concluded that it was without jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The court requested that the clerk transfer the 2022 petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. It also requested that the clerk mail Harrison a copy of the decision and close the case. The opinion does not state that the Second Circuit had ruled on the petition.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.