Alfred Bourgeois v. T.J. Watson
977 F.3d 620
| 7th Cir. | 2020Background
- Alfred Bourgeois was convicted of murdering his two-year-old daughter and sentenced to death under federal law.
- He previously filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion raising an intellectual-disability (Atkins/FDPA) claim; the district court held a week-long evidentiary hearing and denied relief after applying the three-part clinical test.
- Bourgeois sought permission to file a successive § 2255 motion based on Moore v. Texas developments; the Fifth Circuit denied relief under § 2255(h).
- After an execution date was set, Bourgeois filed a § 2241 habeas petition invoking the § 2255(e) “savings clause,” arguing Atkins/FDPA forbid execution of those presently intellectually disabled and that Moore required re-evaluation.
- The district court granted a stay, ruling the government waived any argument that the FDPA claim was not cognizable under the savings clause; the government appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed: it held the government did not waive the argument (and any forfeiture would be excused), and concluded Bourgeois fails the narrow savings-clause test because he had a full, prior opportunity to litigate the claim and Moore does not create the required “something more.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the government waive/f o rfeit the argument that Bourgeois' FDPA claim is not cognizable under § 2255(e)? | Gov't failed to separately address the FDPA claim in its response and did not file a surreply after reply flagged the omission, so it waived the defense. | Gov't treated Atkins/FDPA as a unitary claim and responded accordingly; omission was not intentional waiver or prejudicial forfeiture. | No waiver; at most forfeiture, which court would excuse given the circumstances. |
| Does Bourgeois qualify for § 2255(e) savings-clause relief to bring an Atkins/FDPA claim via § 2241? | Moore I/II changed diagnostic standards; district court applied nonclinical standards so Bourgeois could not fairly litigate under § 2255 — savings clause therefore applies. | § 2255 provided a full, adequate opportunity to litigate Atkins/FDPA; Moore does not create the kind of retroactive, structural defect or new evidence that § 2255(h) or the savings clause requires. | Bourgeois is not eligible for savings-clause relief; he had a full and proper § 2255 proceeding and Moore does not create the required “something more.” |
| Does the FDPA’s present-tense phrasing (“is” intellectually disabled) create a fresh right to relief at execution time that bypasses § 2255? | The FDPA’s use of “is” means current diagnostic standards (post-Moore) should govern execution eligibility, creating a new basis for § 2241 review. | Intellectual disability is a lifelong, developmental condition; the FDPA’s wording does not create a rolling right to relitigate after final § 2255 proceedings. | Rejected Bourgeois’ reading; the FDPA does not open an automatic new § 2241 path whenever diagnostic standards evolve. |
| Was Bourgeois likely to succeed on the merits (stay factor)? | His evidence shows intellectual disability under Moore-era standards; therefore likely success. | Procedural bar: savings clause not satisfied, so merits cannot be reached. | No likelihood of success because claims are procedurally barred; stay vacated and petition to be dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (Eighth Amendment bars executing intellectually disabled offenders)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (courts must apply medical diagnostic standards; strict IQ cutoffs inconsistent with clinical definitions)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (requires courts to follow medical-community diagnostic standards and reject nonclinical Briseno factors)
- Moore v. Texas, 139 S. Ct. 666 (per curiam revisiting Moore and finding intellectual disability on the record)
- Purkey v. United States, 964 F.3d 603 (7th Cir.) (savings clause requires more than an unsuccessful § 2255 claim; must be impossible to correct the defect via § 2255)
- Lee v. Watson, 964 F.3d 663 (7th Cir.) (applies Purkey to reject § 2241 via savings clause when § 2255 could have been used)
- Davenport v. United States, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998) (savings clause applied where retroactive statutory change nullified criminality)
- Webster v. Daniels, 784 F.3d 1123 (7th Cir. 2015) (example where § 2241 relief through savings clause was warranted on new evidence of intellectual disability)
- In re Bourgeois, 902 F.3d 446 (5th Cir.) (denial of permission to file successive § 2255 based on Moore)
- Henry v. Hulett, 969 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2020) (distinguishes waiver from forfeiture and sets limits on plain-error review in civil cases)