ORDER DISMISSING SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE HABEAS PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

JAMES I. COHN, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Petitioner Jesus Machado's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60 Motion for Relief from Judgment [DE 42; DE 44] ("Motion").1 The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion and is otherwise advised in the premises.

I. Background

In May 2008, Machado filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody [DE 1] ("Petition"). The Petition raised two claims alleging that Machado's trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance. See DE 1; see also DE 2 (Mem. in Supp. of Pet.). In November 2008, this Court denied the Petition on the merits. See DE 17 (Final Order of Dismissal). The Eleventh Circuit later denied Machado's request for a certificate of appealability and his motion for reconsideration. See DE 38 (Order of May 12, 2009); DE 40 (Order of July 24, 2009). Too, the Supreme Court denied Machado's petition for a writ of certiorari. See DE 41 (11th Cir. Clerk's Letter of Dec. 22, 2009).

Over six years after his Petition was denied, Machado filed the instant Motion. The Motion presents eight claims for relief, none of which were raised in Machado's earlier Petition. Invoking Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Motion asks the Court "to grant relief from [the] judgment" and to order Machado's release as well as a new trial. DE 42 at 1; DE 44 at 1.

II. Discussion

Although the Motion purports to seek relief under Rule 60(b), the Court must determine whether, in substance, it is a second or successive habeas corpus petition. This is because the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition unless the Eleventh Circuit has authorized such review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) ("Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application."). In this regard,

Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290, 1293-94 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005)) (citations omitted).

Here, Machado's Motion does not assert defects in the integrity of his prior habeas proceedings. Instead, as noted above, the Motion adds new claims not raised in Machado's earlier Petition. The Court thus concludes that the Motion is a second or successive habeas petition rather than a Rule 60(b) motion. Further, Machado has not obtained an order from the Eleventh Circuit allowing this Court to consider the petition. The Court therefore must dismiss the Motion for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Williams, 510 F.3d at 1293-94.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60 Motion for Relief from Judgment [DE 42; DE 44] is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. If Petitioner wishes to pursue the claims set forth in his Motion, he must apply to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for the authorization required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

DONE AND ORDERED.