SAMUEL CUMMINGS, District Judge
Petitioner, Roger A. Smith, filed a Motion for Relief of Judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) on June 12, 2003. The Clerk then received a letter from Petitioner on June 23, 2003, requesting that his motion be disregarded and stating that he would file his motion at a later date.
Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was denied as time-barred on July 18, 2002, and his appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on October 15, 2002.
The Court finds that Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion should be construed as a successive habeas petition. See Fierro v. Johnson, 197 F.3d 147, 151 (5th Cir. 1999) ("Rule 60(b) motions should be construed as successive habeas petitions.")
The Court further finds that Petitioner has failed to show extraordinary circumstances which would permit him to seek relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). See Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212, 216 (5th Cir. 2002).
Petitioner must obtain authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to file a successive petition. See In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364, 365 (5th Cir. 1997) (setting forth procedures which must be followed to request authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition).
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion to vacate is denied as successive.