United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ACTIVE DOCKET, AND (2) TRANSFERRING THE MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT [DKT. # 15] TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
HONORABLE MARIANNE O. BATTANI UNITED STATES DISTRICT
the Court is petitioner's Rule 60(b)(6)(d)(1) motion for
relief from judgment. For the following reasons, the Court
orders the Clerk of the Court to reopen the case to the
Court's active docket. The Court transfers the Rule 60(b)
motion to the United States Court of Appeals pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) for authorization to file a
second or successive habeas petition.
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his
1990 conviction out of the Wayne County Circuit Court for
first-degree felony murder and felony-firearm, which was
denied on the merits. See Tiggart v. Robinson,
U.S.D.C. No. 99-CV-40307 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 25, 2000)(Gadola,
J.); aff'd 36 F. App'x. 750 (6th Cir. 2002);
cert. den. 537 U.S. 849 (2002).
was later denied permission to file a second or successive
petition for writ of habeas corpus by the Sixth Circuit. See
In Re Tiggart, U.S.C.A. No. 09-2321 (6th Cir. Sept.
2010, petitioner filed a second petition for writ of habeas
corpus, which this Court transferred to the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals for authorization to file a successive
petition. Tiggart v. Howes, 2:10-CV-13816 (E.D.
Mich. Oct. 6, 2010). The Sixth Circuit denied petitioner
permission to file a second petition. See In Re
Tiggart, No. 10-2314 (6th Cir. Aug.11, 2011).
2014, petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). On May 28, 2014, the Court
denied the motion in part and transferred the motion to the
Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) for
a determination of whether petitioner should be permitted to
file a successive habeas petition. Tiggart v. Howes,
2:10-CV-13816 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2014). The Sixth Circuit
denied petitioner permission to file a successive petition.
See In Re Tiggart, No. 14-1686 (6th Cir. Nov. 3,
filed a complaint for a constitutional challenge to his
conviction, which this Court construed as a successive habeas
petition and ordered transferred to the Sixth Circuit.
Tiggart v. Howes, 2:10-CV-13816 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 22,
2015). The Sixth Circuit denied petitioner permission to file
a successive habeas petition. In Re Tiggart, No.
15-1475 (6th Cir. Jan. 20, 2016).
has filed another Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment,
in which he again challenges the constitutionality of his
seeks to reopen his case and vacate the original judgment.
The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to reopen the case
to the Court's active docket for the purpose of
facilitating the adjudication of petitioner's Rule 60 (b)
motion. See Heximer v. Woods, No. 2:08-CV-14170,
2016 WL 183629, at * 1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 15, 2016).
a second or successive habeas petition is filed in a federal
district court, a habeas petitioner shall move in the
appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the
district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3)(A); Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523
U.S. 637, 641 (1998). Under the provisions of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a
federal district court does not have jurisdiction to
entertain a successive post-conviction motion or petition for
writ of habeas corpus in the absence of an order from the
court of appeals authorizing the filing of such a successive
motion or petition. Ferrazza v. Tessmer, 36
F.Supp.2d 965, 971 (E.D. Mich. 1999). Unless the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals has given its approval for the
filing of a second or successive petition, a district court
in the Sixth Circuit must transfer the petition or motion to
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals no matter how meritorious
the district court believes the claim to be. Id. at
971; See also In Re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir.
1997). This requirement transfers to the court of appeals a
screening function which the district court previously would
have performed. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664
60(b) motion for relief from judgment which seeks to advance
one or more substantive claims following the denial of a
habeas petition, such as a motion seeking leave to present a
claim that was omitted from the habeas petition due to
mistake or excusable neglect, or seeking to present newly
discovered evidence not presented in the petition, or seeking
relief from judgment due to an alleged change in the
substantive law since the prior habeas petition was denied,
should be classified as a “second or successive habeas
petition, ” which requires authorization from the Court
of Appeals before filing, pursuant to the provisions of
§ 2244(b). See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S.
524, 531 (2005). On the other hand, when a habeas
petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion alleges a “defect in
the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings, ” the
motion should not be transferred to the circuit court for
consideration as a second or successive habeas petition.
Id., at 532. A Rule 60(b) motion is not considered
to be raising ...