Phillips v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant's Rule 60(b) motion that essentially sought reconsideration of prior Dist. Ct. order denying defendant's habeas petition that challenged his guilty plea to charge of transportation of minor in interstate commerce for purpose of prostitution on grounds that his trial counsel labored under conflict of interest arising out of counsel's prior representation of one of defendant's prostitutes in different case. Record showed that instant Rule 60(b) motion qualified as improper second successive request for collateral relief, which was barred under 28 USC section 2244(b), where instant Rule 60(b) motion attacked Dist. Ct.'s original denial on its merits. Fact that appeal of original denial of habeas petition was pending at time Rule 60(b) motion was filed was irrelevant. Ct. further affirmed original denial of habeas petition where defendant failed to show any prejudice arising out of counsel's prior representation of prostitute.