Kimberly Chancellor, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, was convicted in 2008 by a jury of sexual abuse of a minor in Indian Country and sentenced to life in prison. After his direct appeal was affirmed by this court, he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which the district court denied without appeal. Years later, in November 2025, Chancellor filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) in the district court. In this motion, he argued that his prosecution violated his Sixth Amendment rights because the case should have been tried in tribal court rather than federal court. The district court construed this filing as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion. Because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act generally bars second or successive motions unless the appellate court grants authorization, the district court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction and denied a certificate of appealability. Chancellor then petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability to challenge that dismissal.
To obtain a certificate of appealability, a prisoner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, meaning they must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the claims debatable or wrong. Because the district court resolved the motion on a procedural basis—specifically, lack of jurisdiction—Chancellor was required to show that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. The court found that Chancellor's Rule 60(b)(6) motion was, in substance, a § 2255 claim because it sought relief from his 2008 conviction based on alleged constitutional errors. Under established precedent, if a motion seeks relief available under § 2255, it is treated as a § 2255 motion regardless of its title. Consequently, the district court correctly dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, as it cannot address the merits of a second or successive claim without prior authorization from the court of appeals. The court also noted that Chancellor's arguments regarding DNA testing were irrelevant to the procedural dismissal and had already been addressed in a separate appeal.
Chancellor receives no relief and cannot appeal the district court's dismissal further without a certificate of appealability, which has been denied. The decision reinforces the strict jurisdictional bar on second or successive habeas motions, clarifying that courts will look to the substance of a filing rather than its label to determine if it constitutes an unauthorized successive claim. No remand instructions are issued as the matter is dismissed.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download