Gore, 761 F.2d 1549, 1552 (11th Cir.1985) (“[T]he plaintiff cannot use an independent action as a vehicle for the relitigation of issues.”); Bankers Mortgage Co., 423 F.2d at 79 (5th Cir.1970) (“The independent action can not be made a vehicle for the relitigation of issues.”); Donovan v. Sovereign Sec. Ltd., 726 F.2d 55, 60 (2d Cir.1984) (“[Litigants] may not use proceedings seeking relief from or modification of a judgment under F.R. Civ. P. 60 simply to relitigate matters settled by the original judgment....”); Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc., 247 F.Supp.2d 1233, 1235 (D.Kan.2003) (“Like a motion to reconsider, a motion under Rule 60(b) is not a second opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case, to rehash arguments, or to dress up arguments th .1996) (<HOLDING>). The Second Circuit, on the other hand,
holding that a certificate of appealability is unnecessary where a district court dismisses a rule 60b motion as an unauthorized successive habeas motion holding that a habeas corpus petitioner who did not raise an ineffective assistance claim in his first state habeas petition satisfied the cause prong of the cause and prejudice test when counsel on the first state habeas petition was also trial counsel whose performance was allegedly inadequate holding that district courts may properly treat rule 60b motions as successive habeas petitions holding that a rule 60b motion ordinarily should be treated as a successive habeas petition but declining to adopt a bright line rule equating all rule 60b motions with successive habeas petitions holding in a preaedpa context that a rule 60b motion is the practical equivalent of a successive habeas corpus petition and therefore is subject to a cause and prejudice analysis