govinfo:USCOURTS-ohnd-1_07-cr-00068-14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
 CARL HENDERSON,  
 
 
 Defendant. 
 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
 
CASE NO. 1:07-cr-00068 
 
 
OPINION & ORDER 
[Resolving Doc. 535] 
 
 
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: 
 
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Carl Henderson’s “Motion to Reopen 
Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).” For the reasons set forth below, the Court 
concludes that Henderson’s motion is, in substance, a second or successive motion to 
vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Henderson has not obtained authorization from 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to file a successive § 2255 motion, 
this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion.  
The motion is therefore TRANSFERRED to the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 
1631. 
I. BACKGROUND 
Following a jury trial in May 2007, Defendant Carl Henderson was convicted of 
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute PCP, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 
(b)(1)(A), and 846, and of being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a). The jury acquitted Henderson on a separate substantive 
count charging possession with intent to distribute PCP. The Court sentenced Henderson to 
Case: 1:07-cr-00068-JG  Doc #: 538  Filed:  12/23/25  1 of 4.  PageID #: <pageID>
Case No. 1:07-cr-068 
GWIN, J. 
 
- 2 - 
a total term of 270 months’ imprisonment, followed by supervised release. 
Henderson pursued a direct appeal and a separate appeal from the denial of a 
motion for new trial. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence, and the 
Supreme Court denied certiorari. 
In 2013, Henderson filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 
U.S.C. § 2255. In that motion, Henderson raised claims challenging, among other things, 
the drug quantities attributed to him, the special verdict form, and the relationship between 
the jury’s acquittal on one count and the Court’s sentencing findings. He also asserted a 
Brady claim and sought leave to amend to add a claim alleging ineffective assistance of 
counsel relating to a plea offer. 
In August 2014, this Court denied Henderson’s § 2255 motion in a detailed 
opinion, rejected his request to amend as untimely, and denied a certificate of 
appealability. The Sixth Circuit likewise denied a certificate of appealability. 
Henderson now files the present motion styled as a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to reopen 
the judgment denying his § 2255 motion. In substance, Henderson again challenges the 
drug-quantity findings, the special verdict form, and the effect of his acquittal on one count. 
These are the same core arguments raised and rejected in his prior § 2255 proceedings. 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
Federal prisoners are generally limited to one motion under § 2255. A second or 
successive § 2255 motion may not be filed in the district court unless the court of appeals 
first certifies that the motion contains either (1) newly discovered evidence establishing 
innocence by clear and convincing evidence, or (2) a new rule of constitutional law made 
retroactive by the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). 
Case: 1:07-cr-00068-JG  Doc #: 538  Filed:  12/23/25  2 of 4.  PageID #: <pageID>
Case No. 1:07-cr-068 
GWIN, J. 
 
- 3 - 
A motion brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) must be carefully 
scrutinized in the habeas context. As the Supreme Court explained in Gonzalez v. Crosby, 
a Rule 60(b) motion should be treated as a successive habeas petition if it attacks the 
federal court’s previous resolution of a claim on the merits, rather than identifying a defect 
in the integrity of the prior habeas proceedings.1 
The Sixth Circuit has consistently applied this principle in § 2255 cases. A 
post-judgment motion that seeks to relitigate claims previously raised, or to present new 
substantive grounds for relief from the conviction or sentence, constitutes a second or 
successive § 2255 motion, regardless of how it is labeled.2 
When a prisoner files a successive § 2255 motion in the district court without prior 
authorization from the court of appeals, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider it 
and must transfer the filing to the court of appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.3 
III. ANALYSIS 
Although Henderson invokes Rule 60(b)(6), the substance of his motion controls. 
Henderson does not identify a procedural defect in the prior § 2255 proceedings, such as 
fraud on the court, denial of notice, or an inability to present his claims. Instead, he 
challenges the correctness of this Court’s prior merits rulings. 
Specifically, Henderson again argues that the jury’s acquittal on one count is 
inconsistent with the Court’s drug-quantity findings at sentencing and with the special 
verdict form. These arguments were squarely presented in Henderson’s original § 2255 
motion and were addressed and rejected by this Court. Repackaging those same arguments 
 
1 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005). 
2 See In re Nailor, 487 F.3d 1018, 1022 (6th Cir. 2007); Clark v. United States , 764 F.3d 653, 658–59 (6th Cir. 
2014). 
3 In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997). 
Case: 1:07-cr-00068-JG  Doc #: 538  Filed:  12/23/25  3 of 4.  PageID #: <pageID>
Case No. 1:07-cr-068 
GWIN, J. 
 
- 4 - 
as a Rule 60(b) motion does not alter their substantive character. 
Because Henderson’s motion attacks the prior judgment on the merits and seeks 
relief from his conviction and sentence, it is a second or successive § 2255 motion within 
the meaning of § 2255(h) and Gonzalez. Henderson has not obtained authorization from 
the Sixth Circuit to file such a motion. 
Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion. The appropriate 
course is to transfer the motion to the Sixth Circuit so that court may determine whether 
Henderson may proceed. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court FINDS that Defendant Carl Henderson’s 
Motion to Reopen Judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) is a second or successive motion under 28 
U.S.C. § 2255. Because Henderson has not obtained prior authorization from the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the 
motion. 
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and 
In re Sims, the Clerk is DIRECTED to TRANSFER 
Henderson’s motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further 
proceedings. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: December 23, 2025 s/ James S. Gwin   
JAMES S. GWIN 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
Case: 1:07-cr-00068-JG  Doc #: 538  Filed:  12/23/25  4 of 4.  PageID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight