Filed: Jul. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 29, 2019
Summary: ORDER CATHY BISSOON , District Judge . Defendant's Motion (Doc. 109) to reopen under Rule 60(b) will be dismissed as a second or successive 2255 petition. The present Motion seeks to revisit the Court's enforcement of the collateral-attack waiver in Defendant's plea agreement. This issue was addressed in Defendant's original 2255 Petition, and the Court ruled against him. See Doc. 89. Defendant sought a certificate of appealability from the Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit, which
Summary: ORDER CATHY BISSOON , District Judge . Defendant's Motion (Doc. 109) to reopen under Rule 60(b) will be dismissed as a second or successive 2255 petition. The present Motion seeks to revisit the Court's enforcement of the collateral-attack waiver in Defendant's plea agreement. This issue was addressed in Defendant's original 2255 Petition, and the Court ruled against him. See Doc. 89. Defendant sought a certificate of appealability from the Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit, which ..
More
ORDER
CATHY BISSOON, District Judge.
Defendant's Motion (Doc. 109) to reopen under Rule 60(b) will be dismissed as a second or successive § 2255 petition.
The present Motion seeks to revisit the Court's enforcement of the collateral-attack waiver in Defendant's plea agreement. This issue was addressed in Defendant's original 2255 Petition, and the Court ruled against him. See Doc. 89. Defendant sought a certificate of appealability from the Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit, which was denied. See Doc. 96 ("reasonable jurists would [not] debate the District Court's decision to enforce [Defendant's] knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to seek collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255").
Defendant's various and sundry filings and arguments notwithstanding, Rule 60(b) is not a proper vehicle to revisit previously-decided unfavorable rulings. U.S. v. Medina, 2006 WL 3511754, *5 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2006) ("if the defendant seeks to relitigate issues already decided by the district court on habeas, . . . the Rule 60(b) motion constitutes a successive habeas petition") (citing Pridgen v. Shannon, 380 F.3d 721, 727 (3d Cir. 2004)); accord Williams v. U.S., 2018 WL 3093438, *3 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2018) ("[a] Rule 60(b) motion . . . may not be used as a means to reargue matters already argued and disposed of or as an attempt to relitigate a point of disagreement between the [c]ourt and the litigant") (citation to quoted source omitted); U.S. v. Fausnaught, 2018 WL 1911247, *3 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 2018) ("A Rule 60(b) motion may not be used as a second bite at the apple.") (citation to quoted source omitted).
Having determined that Defendant's Motion is a second or successive habeas petition, the Court may either dismiss the petition or transfer it to the court of appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139 (3d Cir. 2002). Because Defendant already has fully-litigated the waiver issue — and because nothing in his Motion comes close to satisfying the substantive requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) — transferring the petition would not be in the interests of justice.
Accordingly, Defendant's Rule 60(b) Motion (Doc. 109) is DISMISSED. No certificate of appealability will issue because jurists of reason would not find the Court's conclusions debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
