Background
Edward Dane Jeffus filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), seeking relief from a judgment connected to his federal conviction and prior proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court accepted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and treated the motion as a successive § 2255 motion.
Because Jeffus had not obtained the Fourth Circuit’s authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, the district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the filing. Jeffus, proceeding pro se, appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. After reviewing the record, the court held that the district court properly characterized Jeffus’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion as a successive § 2255 motion and properly dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction because he had not obtained the required prefiling authorization.
The court also construed Jeffus’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. It concluded that his claims did not satisfy the requirements of § 2255(h) and denied authorization. The court noted that no certificate of appealability was required to challenge the jurisdictional classification of his Rule 60(b) motion.
Key Takeaways
- A filing labeled as a Rule 60(b) motion may be treated as a successive § 2255 motion when its substance seeks prohibited collateral review of a federal conviction or sentence.
- A district court lacks jurisdiction over a successive § 2255 motion filed without prior authorization from the appropriate court of appeals.
- The Fourth Circuit may construe appellate filings as an application for authorization, but authorization will be denied unless the proposed claims satisfy § 2255(h).
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that courts examine the substance of a post-judgment motion, not merely its label. Federal prisoners generally cannot use Rule 60(b) to bypass the statutory restrictions governing second or successive § 2255 motions.
Although unpublished and nonprecedential, the opinion illustrates the Fourth Circuit’s procedure for addressing improperly labeled collateral attacks and related requests for successive-petition authorization.