STRANGE v. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
STEVE A. STRANGE,
Petitioner,
vs. 	Case No.: 4:12cv505/MW/ZCB
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
__________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, Steve Strange, has filed a pro se motion for relief from
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). 	(Doc. 51). 	He
has also filed a motion to supplement the record. 	(Doc. 52). 	For the
reasons below, Petitioner’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion should be denied and
this matter dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
I. 	Background
Petitioner 	was 	convicted 	after 	a 	state 	jury 	trial 	in 	2007 	of
attempting 	to 	elude 	a 	law 	enforcement 	officer, 	driving 	under 	the
influence, and driving while license canceled, suspended, or revoked.
(Doc. 51); 	Strange v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., No. 4:12cv505, 2015 WL
3999444, at *1 (N.D. Fla. June 30, 2015). He was sentenced to thirty-five
Case 4:12-cv-00505-MW-ZCB Document 53 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 6

2
years in prison. 	Strange, 2015 WL 3999444, at *1. 	The state appellate
court affirmed the judgment and sentence. Id. Petitioner unsuccessfully
sought postconviction relief in the state courts. 	Id. at *1-2.
In 2012, Petitioner turned his postconviction efforts to federal court
by filing a habeas corpus petition, and then an amended petition, under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. 	Id. at *2. 	The amended petition raised nine grounds
for relief. 	Id. at *4-13. 	As relevant here, Ground Five raised a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial attorney advising
Petitioner to reject a favorable plea offer. 	Id. at *7-8. The district court
rejected that claim on the merits. 	Id. at *1, 7-8. 	Petitioner appealed.
The Eleventh Circuit 	denied a certificate of appealability on all of
Petitioner’s habeas claims, including Ground Five. 	Strange, No. 15-
13255 (11th Cir. Dec. 2, 2015).
Now, eleven years later, Petitioner has filed the instant motion to
reopen under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). 	(Doc. 51). 	The motion seeks to
relitigate 	the 	district 	court’s 	previous 	rejection 	of 	Ground 	Five 	of
Petitioner’s § 2254 petition. 	(Id. at 5-10). 	The motion also raises a new
substantive ground for habeas relief, “Ground Ten.” 	(Id. at 11-16). 	In
the new claim, Petitioner argues that his sentence enhancement under
Case 4:12-cv-00505-MW-ZCB Document 53 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Florida’s Habitual Felony Offender statue was unconstitutional in light
of the Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821
(2024). (Id.).
II. 	Discussion
Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief or reopen a civil case under
these circumstances: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that with due diligence could not
have been discovered in time for a new trial; (3) fraud, misrepresentation,
or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the
judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; and (6) “any other
reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
A Rule 60(b) motion cannot be used to circumvent the prohibition
on 	filing 	unauthorized 	successive 	federal 	habeas 	corpus 	petitions.
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32 (2005). The Supreme Court has
held 	that 	Rule 	60(b) 	motions 	are 	to 	be 	considered 	impermissible
successive 	habeas 	petitions 	if 	the 	prisoner 	either 	(1) 	raises 	a 	new
substantive ground for relief or (2) attacks the habeas court’s previous
resolution of a claim on the merits. 	Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 531-32;
Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290, 1293-94 (11th Cir. 2007).
Case 4:12-cv-00505-MW-ZCB Document 53 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 6

4
A district court may not consider a successive habeas petition under
§ 	2254 	unless 	the 	petitioner 	has 	obtained 	authorization 	from 	the
appropriate 	appellate 	court. 	28 U.S.C. 	§ 2244(3)(A); 	Rule 	9, 	Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 2 States District Courts
(2015). Absent such appellate court authorization, a district court lacks
jurisdiction over a successive § 2254 petition. See Burton v. Stewart, 549
U.S. 147, 152 (2007) (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to
entertain a second habeas petition because the prisoner failed to obtain
appellate court authorization); see also Fugate v. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d
1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (same).
Here, Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion attacks the Court’s previous
merits resolution of Ground Five of his amended section 2254 petition. It
also raises a new ground for substantive habeas relief, “Ground Ten.”
Because 	Petitioner’s 	Rule 	60(b)(6) 	motion 	raises 	a 	new 	ground 	for
substantive relief and attacks the previous merits-based resolution of a
claim, it qualifies as a successive habeas petition. 	And because it is a
successive 	habeas 	petition, 	the 	Court 	cannot 	entertain 	Petitioner’s
arguments unless he first received permission from the appropriate
appellate court—i.e., the U.S Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Case 4:12-cv-00505-MW-ZCB Document 53 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Petitioner has not received such permission. 	Accordingly, Petitioner’s
Rule 60(b)(6) motion should be denied and this matter dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction. 	See Bowles v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 935 F.3d 1176,
1182 (11th Cir. 2019) (stating that a district court is “required to dismiss”
for “lack of jurisdiction” a second or successive § 2254 petition that is filed
without the appellate court’s permission).
III. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Petitioner’s “Motion to Reopen…Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6)
Under This Court’s Jurisdiction” (Doc. 51) be DENIED and this matter
DISMISSED 	for 	lack 	of 	jurisdiction 	because 	the 	motion 	is 	a
successive § 2254 habeas petition that was filed without the Eleventh
Circuit’s permission.1
2. 	Petitioner’s motion to supplement the record (Doc. 52) be
DENIED as moot.
1 	A 	certificate 	of 	appealability 	is 	not 	required 	to 	appeal 	an 	order
dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a second or successive § 2254 petition.
Osbourne v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 968 F.3d 1261, 1264 n.3 (11th Cir.
2020).
Case 4:12-cv-00505-MW-ZCB Document 53 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 6

6
At Pensacola, Florida, this 12th day of February 2026.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must
be 	filed 	within 	fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may 	appear 	on 	the
electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control.
An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all other parties.
A 	party 	who 	fails 	to 	object 	to 	the 	magistrate 	judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the
right 	to 	challenge 	on 	appeal 	the 	district 	court’s 	order 	based 	on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 4:12-cv-00505-MW-ZCB Document 53 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 6