Julia Shawnette Gorman v. Warden Patricia Yedell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6160
JULIA SHAWNETTE GORMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN PATRICIA YEDELL,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:22-cv-01036-HMH)
Submitted: May 10, 2024 Decided: June 25, 2024
Before AGEE, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julia Shawnette Gorman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Julia Shawnette Gorman appeals the district court’s order denying Gorman’s Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment in Gorman’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding.
“[A] Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas proceeding that attacks ‘the substance of the federal
court’s resolution of a claim on the merits’ is not a true Rule 60(b) motion, but rather a
successive habeas petition,” and is subject to the preauthorization requirement of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(A). United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005)). By contrast, “[a] Rule 60(b) motion that
challenges ‘some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings’ . . . is a true
Rule 60(b) motion, and is not subject to the preauthorization requirement.” Id. (quoting
Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532). Where the movant “presents claims subject to the requirements
for successive applications as well as claims cognizable under Rule 60(b),” such a pleading
is a mixed true Rule 60(b) motion/successive § 2254 petition. Id. at 400 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
In her Rule 60(b) motion, Gorman sought a remedy for a perceived flaw in her
§ 2254 proceeding and raised direct attacks on her conviction. Thus, Gorman’s pleading
was a mixed Rule 60(b) motion/§ 2254 petition. The district court did not afford Gorman
the opportunity to elect between deleting her successive § 2254 claims or having her entire
motion treated as a successive § 2254 petition. See McRae, 793 F.3d at 400. We therefore
grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court’s order, and remand for further
proceedings in accordance with McRae. We deny as moot Gorman’s motion to expedite.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --