Habeas petitioner’s attempt to use Rule 60(b) to attack the rejection of a Fourth Amendment claim was a backdoor successor habeas that doesn’t satisfy grounds for one. In re Henderson, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4856 (6th Cir. Feb. 14, 2020)*:
The first ground for relief raised in Henderson’s prior habeas corpus petition asserted that his person and property were seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the sixth ground for relief raised in his prior habeas corpus petition asserted, in part, that the state trial court lacked jurisdiction over his criminal proceedings. The district court rejected Henderson’s Fourth Amendment and jurisdiction claims. Henderson’s Rule 60(b) motion attacked the district court’s merits-based rejection of his prior habeas corpus petition by attempting to resurrect and challenge the district court’s rejection of his Fourth Amendment and jurisdiction claims. Thus, the motion constitutes a second or successive habeas corpus petition. See Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532; Post v. Bradshaw, 422 F.3d 419, 424-25 (6th Cir. 2005).