United States of America v. Outley

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CR-17-254-SLP
)
TYRONE LEROY OUTLEY, )
)
Defendant. )
O R D E R
Before the Court is Defendant’s pro se Motion under Rule 60(b)(3) alleging Fraud
on the Court [Doc. No. 188]. The Motion is fully briefed. See Government’s Resp. [Doc.
No. 190]; Def.’s Reply [Doc. No. 191]. For the reasons that follow the Motion is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.1
I. Background
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of various drug charges and sentenced to
360 months imprisonment. See Doc. Nos. 85, 136. His conviction and sentence were
affirmed on direct appeal. See Doc. No. 162. Defendant then sought relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 and claimed that his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. See
Doc. No. 168. The Court denied relief and the Tenth Circuit dismissed Defendant’s appeal
of the denial. See Doc. Nos. 177, 178, 183. Defendant then filed a motion requesting
judicial notice which the Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized second
1 This case was transferred to the undersigned upon Judge Stephen P. Friot’s transition to inactive
senior status. See Doc. No. 189.
Case 5:17-cr-00254-SLP Document 192 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 4

2
or successive § 2255 motion or, alternatively. as a petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 which must be filed in the district of confinement . See Doc. No. 186.
Defendant has now filed a Motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) alleging fraud on the
court. Specifically, Defendant claims that he was subject to a “bogus ‘motion for order
for writ of habeas corpus prosequendum’” and that the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus
ad prosequendum in this case, see Doc. No. 5, is improper because it was issued pursuant
to a motion, see Doc. No. 3, instead of “an application in the form of a petition.” See Mot.
at 2-3 (citing Doc. No. 188-6).
The Government has responded and argues that Defendant’s Motion must be
construed as a second or successive § 2255 motion over which this Court lacks jurisdiction.
Alternatively, the Government argues the motion is untimely and further, that it lacks merit
as “a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is a well-founded part of the law.” Resp. at
1-2.
II. Discussion
A Rule 60(b) motion is a second or successive petition “‘if it in substance or effect
asserts or reasserts a federal basis for relief from the petitioner’s underlying conviction.’”
In re Wesley, 164 F.4th 1215, 1218 (10th Cir. 2026) (quoting Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d
1213, 1215-16 (10th Cir. 2006)). But such a motion is a “true” 60(b) motion if it
“‘challenges a defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceeding, provided that such
a challenge does not itself lead inextricably to a merits-based attack on the disposition of a
prior habeas petition.’” Id.
Defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion is wholly divorced from the claims raised in his
Case 5:17-cr-00254-SLP Document 192 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 4

3
federal habeas proceeding and, therefore, it does not challenge a defect in the integrity of
the federal habeas proceeding. Instead, his Motion purports to attack his underlying
criminal prosecution based on an allegedly improperly issued writ of habeas corpus ad
prosequendum. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is an unauthorized second or successive
§ 2255 motion. See United States v. Baker, 718 F.3d 1204, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013) (“[A]
[Rule 60(b)] motion alleging fraud on the court in a defendant’s criminal proceeding must
be considered a second-or-successive collateral attack because it asserts or reasserts a
challenge to the defendant’s underlying conviction.”). This Court lacks jurisdiction to
consider the Motion as Defendant has not obtained prior authorization from the Tenth
Circuit to proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Furthermore, the Court declines to transfer
the matter to the Tenth Circuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, as Defendant’s Motion fails
to satisfy the authorization requirements of § 2255(h).2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s pro se Motion under Rule
60(b)(3) alleging Fraud on the Court [Doc. No. 188] is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability (COA) is DENIED.3
A COA may issue only upon “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Defendant
cannot satisfy the requirements for issuance of a COA. Therefore, a COA is DENIED and
2 Because the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s Motion, the Court deems it
unnecessary to address the Government’s alternative grounds for denying the Motion.
3 See United States v. Harper, 545 F.3d 1230, 1233 (10th Cir. 2008) (a COA is required to appeal
the court’s dismissal of an unauthorized second or successive § 225 motion for lack of jurisdiction).
Case 5:17-cr-00254-SLP Document 192 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 4

4
the denial shall be included in the judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of October, 2026.
Case 5:17-cr-00254-SLP Document 192 Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 4