Note

Can a Closed § 2255 or Habeas Case Be Reopened?

Rarely, but it can happen: the Ninth Circuit held that a clear change in procedural law, followed by a prompt motion, can justify reopening a habeas case.

Written by Brandon Sample · Updated October 9, 2026 · Filed under Trial

A closed § 2255 or habeas case can sometimes be reopened, but it is rare. The tool is a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which asks a court to reopen a case it already decided. The author of the original post admitted he cringed whenever someone asked whether filing one was a good idea. District courts have broad discretion to grant or deny these motions, and a quick look at appeals from Rule 60(b) denials makes it seem that district courts have "immunity" whenever they deny them.

Still, reopening does happen. A court abuses its discretion when it applies the right law in the wrong way, and that is what happened to a state prisoner who asked to reopen his federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after the law that had blocked it changed.

The Case

In Bynoe v. Baca, No. 17-17012 (9th Cir. July 24, 2020), the district court had dismissed Michael Bynoe's habeas petition because none of his claims had first gone through the state courts (lawyers call this "exhaustion"). At the time, the court read Ninth Circuit law to require dismissal instead of a pause.

Later, in Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit made clear that district courts can pause (stay) petitions like his while the prisoner goes to state court. Bynoe then filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to reopen. The district court denied it as too late, by several years, and found the change in law was not an "extraordinary circumstance."

The Ninth Circuit reversed. It held that a clear change in procedural law that kept a petitioner's claims from ever being heard, followed by a prompt motion, can justify reopening the case so the new law can apply.

Why Finality Was Not a Barrier

About seven years had passed since the case was closed, but the court found concerns about finality and respect for state courts were "minimal," because the merits had never been decided.

When a habeas petition is dismissed on flawed procedural grounds, the court explained, there are no "past effects" of the judgment that reopening would disturb. "The parties would simply pick up where they left off," even though several years had passed since the petition was denied.

Before Filing a Rule 60(b) Motion

Two cautions apply. First, timing: a Rule 60(b) motion must be made within a "reasonable time," and motions based on mistake, new evidence or fraud must be filed no more than a year after the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Second, a motion that attacks the court's ruling on the merits, rather than a defect in the proceedings, may be treated as a second or successive § 2255 motion or habeas petition, which needs permission from the court of appeals. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005).