John Williams v. State of Florida

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10058
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JOHN O. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cv-00629-RH-EMT
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10058 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/05/2024 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10058
Before R OSENBAUM , BRASHER , and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
John Williams appeals the district court’s denial of his Fed-
eral Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion as an unauthorized sec-
ond or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. After careful
review, we affirm.
I.
In 2009, Williams was convicted in state court of lewd or
lascivious molestation of a child and attempted lewd or lascivious
molestation of a child. After unsuccessfully pursuing relief from his
convictions in state court, Williams filed his first 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition in federal court in November 2014, raising claims of inef-
fective assistance of counsel and other trial errors. The district
court denied the § 2254 petition with prejudice, and Williams’s ap-
peal of that judgment ended with the denial of a certificate of ap-
pealability (COA).
As relevant here, in October 2022, Williams moved for relief
from the § 2254 judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b). He claimed that the judgment should be reopened because
the underlying state charges had been improperly joined and his
trial, appellate, and post-conviction counsel were ineffective in fail-
ing to raise the issue. Previously, in July 2022, we denied Wil-
liams’s application for leave to file a successive § 2254 petition rais-
ing these same grounds.
USCA11 Case: 23-10058 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/05/2024 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

23-10058 Opinion of the Court 3
The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion. The court
found, among other things, that the motion was not filed within a
reasonable time from entry of the judgment, that it did not allege
any error in the § 2254 proceeding that was cognizable under Rule
60(b), and that it was, in substance, an unauthorized second or suc-
cessive § 2254 petition.
Williams appealed, but the district court denied a COA.
This Court likewise denied a COA to the extent Williams sought
to appeal the district court’s determination that he could not
demonstrate an entitlement to Rule 60(b) relief. Nevertheless, we
noted that no COA was necessary for Williams to appeal the denial
of his Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive § 2254 peti-
tion. We consider that issue now.
II.
Although Rule 60(b) generally permits relief from a § 2255
judgment, the rule cannot be used to circumvent restraints on fil-
ing successive § 2254 petitions. Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290,
1292–94 (11th Cir. 2007). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), a prisoner seeking to file a “second
or successive” § 2254 petition must first file an application with the
appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district
court to consider it. See id. at 1294; 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (outlining
the requirements an applicant must meet to obtain an order au-
thorizing a successive § 2255 motion). Without authorization from
a court of appeals, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a
successive motion. Williams, 510 F.3d at 1295.
USCA11 Case: 23-10058 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/05/2024 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-10058
Rule 60(b) does not authorize relief when application of that
rule “would be inconsistent with the restrictions imposed on suc-
cessive petitions by the AEDPA.” Id. at 1293. A Rule 60(b) motion
will be “treated as a successive habeas petition if it: (1) seeks to add
a new ground of relief; or (2) attacks the federal court’s previous
resolution of a claim on the merits.” Id. at 1293–94 (quoting Gonza-
lez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 & n.4 (2005)). But Rule 60(b) may
properly be used to raise a “defect in the integrity of the federal
habeas proceedings.” Id. at 1294 (quotation marks omitted).
Here, the district court properly treated Williams’s Rule
60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition. See
Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532; Williams, 510 F.3d at 1293–94. In his Rule
60(b) motion, Williams sought to raise new grounds for habeas re-
lief—that his charges should have been severed for trial and that his
attorneys were ineffective for failing to raise that issue. He did not
raise any defects in the integrity of the federal § 2254 proceeding
that would be cognizable under Rule 60(b), and, in any event, this
Court has already denied a COA to appeal on Rule 60(b) grounds.
See Williams, 510 F.3d at 1294. Because Williams’s initial § 2254
petition was denied on the merits and he has not received authori-
zation to bring his new claims in a successive § 2254 petition, hav-
ing instead been denied authorization to raise similar claims, the
district court lacked jurisdiction. See id. at 1295. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-10058 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/05/2024 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --