Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman v. Wayne Carpenter
805 F.3d 710
6th Cir.2015Background
- Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman (formerly James Lee Jones) was convicted in Tennessee of first-degree murder (death sentence) and related offenses in 1987; state courts and post-conviction proceedings denied relief.
- He obtained federal habeas relief in 1998 on sentencing ineffectiveness; this court later vacated that relief, holding no prejudice from counsel’s performance.
- Multiple Brady and prosecutorial-misconduct claims were raised and litigated in state and federal proceedings; several were adjudicated on the merits, others were held procedurally defaulted.
- In 2013 Abdur’Rahman filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking to reopen procedurally-defaulted claims based on the Supreme Court’s Martinez and Trevino decisions.
- The district court concluded Martinez/Trevino did not apply in Tennessee; this court (on appeal) held Martinez/Trevino do apply to Tennessee but affirmed denial of Rule 60(b) relief because Martinez/Trevino did not authorize relief for the claims he sought to reopen and because change in decisional law alone is not an "extraordinary circumstance" under Rule 60(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Abdur’Rahman) | Defendant's Argument (Warden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Martinez/Trevino to Tennessee cases | Martinez/Trevino excuse certain procedural defaults; Tennessee procedural posture makes defaults excusable | Martinez/Trevino do not apply to Tennessee (district court initially) | Appellate court: Martinez/Trevino apply to Tennessee (Sutton controlling) |
| Whether Martinez/Trevino excuse the cumulative-error claim | Cumulative Brady/prosecutorial-misconduct and ineffective-assistance claims should be revived under Martinez | Martinez limited to IATC claims; cumulative-error and many claims were either adjudicated on the merits or are not IATC defaults | Martinez does not excuse the cumulative-error claim; many subclaims were adjudicated on the merits or are beyond Martinez’s scope |
| Whether Martinez/Trevino excuse failure-to-challenge accomplice-instruction (IATC) claim | Trial counsel ineffective for not obtaining corroboration instruction; post-conviction/appellate counsel ineffective for not raising it | Martinez applies only to IATC claims defaulted for lack/ineffectiveness of initial collateral counsel; trial error or appellate counsel ineffectiveness not covered; evidence sufficiently corroborated so claim is not substantial | Court: Martinez inapplicable or claim not substantial because accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated; thus no relief |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief warranted due to Martinez/Trevino (change in decisional law) | The Supreme Court’s change in law constitutes grounds to reopen judgment and to remand for reconsideration | A change in decisional law is not ordinarily an "extraordinary circumstance" warranting Rule 60(b)(6); no new facts shown | Court: Denied Rule 60(b)(6) relief; a change in decisional law alone is not extraordinary; no other extraordinary circumstances shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (initial-review collateral counsel’s ineffectiveness can establish cause to excuse procedural default of substantial IATC claims)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (extends Martinez to states whose procedures make presentation of IATC on direct appeal unlikely)
- Sutton v. Carpenter, 745 F.3d 787 (6th Cir. 2014) (applies Martinez/Trevino to Tennessee convictions)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b) relief in habeas context requires extraordinary circumstances; change in precedent generally not sufficient)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)