Go to:	Briefs Menu	Cases Pending	Cases Decided

ABDUR'RAHMAN v. BELL

United States Supreme Court No. 01-9094

---

QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Does Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to a case where the petitioner seeks to relitigate in the District Court an issue decided against him by that court, in the absence of any fraud on the court or fundamental mis-carriage of justice?

2. Does the successive petition rule apply to an issue previously decided against the petitioner on the ground of procedural default?

3. Can Rule 60(b) be used to revive an issue of law decided against the petitioner in District Court and intentionally omitted from his appeal?

4. Does a Court of Appeals abuse its discretion by refusing to consider a claim intentionally omitted from the appeal and raised for the first time in that court on petition for rehearing, in a habeas case involving no question of guilt of the offense?

ORAL ARGUMENT DATE: November 6, 2002

---

INTRODUCTION

Interest of amicus curiae
Summary of facts and case
Summary of argument

Argument - Part I

I. FRCP 60(b) does not apply to habeas cases where its effect is to evade the successive petition statute

A. Habeas corpus and the civil rules
B. The successive petition rule

Part II - Conclusion

II. The successive petition rule applies to this case

A. The appellate mandate
B. Successive petitions and defaulted claims

III. Even in regular civil cases, Rule 60(b) is not available to revive issues omitted from the appeal

Conclusion