Fernandez v. United States · ¶32

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U. S. 524 (2005), fows in the same vein. There, we held that prisoners may not use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to argue that a denial of habeas relief was wrong on the merits and warrants reopening. The language of Rule 60(b) is expansive, permitting courts to reopen a final judgment whenever a movant shows “any . . . reason that justifes relief.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 60(b)(6) (emphasis added). And the text of § 2254 “did not expressly circumscribe the operation of Rule 60(b).” Gonzalez, 545 U. S., at 529. Yet allowing movants to use a Rule 60(b) motion to make merits arguments would still collide with § 2254. It would permit movants to “circumvent” the strict statutory habeas standards, including “that a successive habeas petition be precertifed by the court of appeals.” Id., at 531– 532 (citing 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b)(3)). And the Rule could not be…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.