[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-12775 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 4, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-00290-CV-OC-10-GRJ
ISRAEL SANTIAGO-LUGO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - USP-1,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(August 4, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Israel Santiago-Lugo, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from the dismissal of his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
In his section 2241 petition, Santiago-Lugo claimed he actually was innocent
of his continuing criminal enterprise conviction, 21 U.S.C. § 848, based on
Richardson v. United States, 119 S.Ct. 1707 (1999). The district court dismissed
this petition with prejudice. Santiago-Lugo then moved the district court pursuant
to Rule 60(b) to set aside the dismissal of the section 2241 petition and to order an
evidentiary hearing on the petition. He cited the Supreme Court’s intervening
decisions in United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020 (2008), and Regalado Cuellar
v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 1994 (2008), as bases for invalidating his convictions.
He also indicated that the district court had not applied the correct standard of
review to the Richardson claim raised in his section 2241 petition. The court
summarily denied the motion.
On appeal, Santiago-Lugo argues that the district court abused its discretion
in denying him Rule 60(b) relief because -- based on Richardson, Santos, and
Regalado Cuellar -- he presented a claim of actual and legal innocence that
2
justified the reopening of his section 2241 proceeding.* We review the denial of
Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion only; and we will not review the
validity of the underlying judgment. Rice v. Ford Motor Co., 88 F.3d 914, 918-19
(11th Cir. 1996).
Rule 60(b) permits a party to move for relief from a final judgment under
certain specific circumstances, such as surprise, excusable neglect, newly
discovered evidence, and fraud by an opposing party. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)-
(6). The catchall provision -- Rule 60(b)(6) -- authorizes relief for “any other
reason that justifies relief.” “Rule 60(b)(6) motions must demonstrate that the
circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief. Even then, whether
to grant the requested relief is a matter for the district court’s sound discretion.”
Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation and alteration
marks omitted).
To succeed on appeal, Santiago-Lugo “must demonstrate a justification so
compelling that the district court was required to vacate its order.” Id. (quotation
and alteration marks omitted). Santiago-Lugo has demonstrated no such
compelling justification. He relies only on changes in the law to justify Rule 60(b)
*
In the district court, Santiago-Lugo also filed a motion for leave to amend his section
2241 petition along with his Rule 60(b) motion. But on appeal, he does not challenge the district
court’s denial of leave to amend; and thus, he has abandoned any challenge to this denial. See
Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989).
3
relief; and “something more than a ‘mere’ change in the law is necessary to
provide the grounds for Rule 60(b)(6) relief.” Ritter v. Smith, 811 F.2d 1398, 1401
(11th Cir. 1987) (explaining that the movant must persuade the court that a
combination of factors, including the change in law, gives rise to circumstances
that are sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief).
Because Santiago-Lugo argues only that the Santos and Regalado Cuellar
decisions provide new grounds for overturning his convictions -- and points to no
additional factors that warrant relief -- he has presented insufficient reasons to
justify Rule 60(b) relief. Because the district court correctly denied the Rule 60(b)
motion, the original denial of his section 2241 petition remained intact; and so, the
district court committed no error in denying Santiago-Lugo’s motion for an
evidentiary hearing on the section 2241 petition.
AFFIRMED.
4