Wells v. Miller
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-11231
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wells v. Miller, Judge Liman denied Carl D. Wells’s second reconsideration motion and invited a letter requesting treatment as a successive habeas petition.
The ruling directly affected Carl D. Wells, the state prisoner who filed the second reconsideration motion, and Superintendent Mark Miller, the respondent named in the case.
What happened
Carl D. Wells, a state prisoner, asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his petition challenging his custody. This was his second reconsideration motion under Rule 60(b), after the court had already denied his first motion and the appeals court had denied his related requests.
The court denied the second reconsideration request. It explained that reconsideration rules apply in habeas cases only when consistent with federal habeas law, and that a motion attacking the underlying conviction may count as a second or successive habeas petition.
Judge Liman said Wells could ask by letter, by April 11, 2024, for the court to treat the motion as a successive habeas petition. He also explained that such a petition generally requires advance authorization from the appropriate appeals court.
The detailed version
- Wells v. Miller · No. 1:21-cv-11231
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 21, 2024
Background
Carl D. Wells, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner, previously filed a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 27, 2023, the court denied that petition, concluding that the requirement to first pursue available state-court remedies should not be excused even though the state court had delayed deciding Wells’s direct appeal. The court also found that Wells had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied and therefore declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Wells later filed a first motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which the court denied on June 12, 2023. He then appealed and sought a certificate of appealability, permission to proceed without paying filing fees, and appointment of counsel. The Second Circuit denied all three requests on February 13, 2024. Wells then filed the second reconsideration motion addressed in this order.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that Rule 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment or order in specified circumstances, applies in § 2254 proceedings only when it is consistent with the federal statutes and rules governing habeas cases. The court emphasized that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act limits second or successive habeas applications.
Under the court’s analysis, a Rule 60(b) motion is, in substance, a successive habeas petition when it attacks the prisoner’s underlying criminal conviction. The opinion did not itself decide that Wells’s motion should be treated as a successive petition. Instead, it stated that Wells could notify the court by letter if he wanted the court to construe the motion that way. The deadline for that letter was April 11, 2024. The court further explained that, before a district court may accept a successive § 2254 petition, the applicant must obtain an order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider it.
Disposition
The court stated that “the petition is denied,” in the context of Wells’s second motion for reconsideration. It also gave Wells the option to notify the court by the stated deadline if he wanted the motion treated as a successive habeas petition. The order was signed by United States District Judge Lewis J. Liman.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.