United States v. Enio Zaragoza-Santa Cruz

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner timely appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Reviewing de novo whether .Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion is an unauthorized second or successive habeas petition, Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825, 833 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 503 , 187 L.Ed.2d 340 (2013), we hold that it is. The district court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 , 127 S.Ct. 793 , 166 L.Ed.2d 628 (2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand with instructions to dismiss.

Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion is, by its substance, a “disguised second or successive § 2255 motion” barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (h). United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir.2011). Even assuming that Petitioner can raise a color-able argument that his original habeas petition was timely, Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion does not attack “some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 , 125 S.Ct. 2641 , 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005); see also United States v. Buenrostro, 638 F.3d 720, 722…