Kenneth Colvin, Jr. v. Russ Rurka, Warden

This petition from the Sixth Circuit asks whether Colvin's Rule 60(d) motion, which alleged fraud upon the court in his earlier federal habeas case, should have been heard by the district court. It also asks whether the court of appeals should have sent the motion back instead of treating it under the rules for a successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2244.

The case is still at the certiorari (the Court's decision whether to hear the case) stage, and no oral argument is scheduled. Colvin argues that his fraud-upon-the-court motion belonged in district court, not under the rules for repeat habeas petitions.

The answer could affect how prisoners try to reopen old federal habeas cases when they claim a judgment was tainted by fraud. For example, it could determine whether a district judge hears that claim directly or whether the filing must clear the tougher rules for repeat habeas petitions.

It asks which court should handle Colvin's Rule 60(d) fraud-upon-the-court motion. He says it should return to district court, not be treated as a repeat habeas filing.

People trying to reopen old federal habeas cases could be affected. The case could shape whether alleged fraud claims get a district-court hearing or face stricter repeat-petition rules.

The justices will decide whether to grant certiorari and take the case. If they do not, the Court will leave the lower-court result untouched without deciding the legal question.