# Gonzalez v. Crosby

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 23, 2005 · 545 U.S. 524

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9500021

## Case

- **Full name:** Gonzalez v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 23, 2005
- **Citations:** 545 U.S. 524; 125 S. Ct. 2641; 162 L. Ed. 2d 480; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5014
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Breyer
- **Judges:** Scalia, Breyer, Stevens, Soutee
- **Cited by:** 3,136 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Limited by Armando Albo v. United States, 498 F. App'x 490 (2012).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9500021

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding, in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 context, that when a Rule 60(b) motion attacks “some defect in the integrity of * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth…
- explaining that a Rule 60(b) motion should be treated as a second or successive habeas petition “if it attacks the federal court's previous resolution of a claim on the merits, since alleging that the court erred in denying habeas relief on the merits is effectively indistingu…
- holding the district court correctly denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6) to a habeas petitioner based on a Supreme Court decision that was made after judgment; reasoning that the petitioner’s lack of diligence in pursuing the issue on appeal “confirms that [the Supreme Court dec…
- explaining that petitioner advances habeas claims in Rule 60(b) motion if they “attack[] the federal court’s previous resolution of a claim on the merits, since alleging that the court erred in denying habeas relief on the merits is effectively indistinguishable from alleging …
- explaining that a Rule 60(b) motion amounts to a second or successive 4 petition for habeas relief if it either “seeks to add a new ground for relief” or “attacks the federal court’s previous resolution of a claim on the merits,” and that a “claim” is “an asserted federal basi…

## Opinion text

Justice Breyer,
concurring.
The majority explains that a proper Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion “attacks, not the substance of the federal court’s resolution of a claim on the merits, but some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings.” Ante, at 532. This is consistent with Judge Tjofiat’s description of the standard in his opinion below, see 366 F. 3d 1253, 1297 (CA11 2004) (specially concurring in part and dissenting in part), and I agree with it. I fear that other language in the majority’s opinion, especially its discussion of the significance of the word “claim,” could be taken to imply a different *539 standard, with which I would disagree. With that qualification, I join the majority’s opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9500021. Public record. Not legal advice.