Albert Cunningham v. Kevin Chappell

MEMORANDUM

Albert Cunningham appeals the district court’s finding that his “Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order” brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) was a disguised second or successive habeas corpus petition filed without prior approval from this Court, and that therefore the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the purported Rule 60(b) motion. We grant Cunningham a limited Certificate of Appealability so as to permit our review of this appeal. Because we agree that Cunningham’s purported Rule 60(b) motion is a second or successive habeas corpus petition — filed without seeking permission from this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A) to file such a petition — we affirm the district court’s denial of relief.

“Habeas corpus petitions cannot utilize a Rule 60(b) motion to make an end-run around the requirements of AEDPA or to otherwise circumvent that statute’s restrictions on second or successive habeas corpus petitions.” Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825, 833 (9th Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Motions properly brought under Rule 60(b) generally attack the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings, whereas motions that present…