Arturo Diaz v. William Stephens, Director
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19641
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Arturo Diaz was convicted in Texas of capital murder, attempted capital murder, and aggravated robbery, and sentenced to death after brutal stabbings during robberies.
- Texas state courts denied habeas relief; Diaz filed federal habeas in 2004 alleging, among other things, ineffective assistance of trial counsel (plea-bargain advice and penalty-phase mitigation investigation/presentation).
- The federal district court denied relief in 2005, finding some claims procedurally defaulted and rejecting the mitigation claim on the merits (no Strickland prejudice); this court affirmed and certiorari was denied.
- In 2013, Diaz moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) and for a stay of execution, arguing Martinez v. Ryan and Trevino v. Thaler created cause to excuse state-court defaults and thus warranted reopening his final habeas judgment.
- The district court denied the 60(b)(6) motion and stay, applying Fifth Circuit precedent that changes in decisional law (including Martinez as interpreted in Adams) are not ordinarily "extraordinary circumstances" to reopen final judgments; the court granted a COA and Diaz appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Diaz's Argument | State/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez/Trevino constitute "extraordinary circumstances" under Rule 60(b)(6) to reopen a final habeas judgment | Martinez and Trevino create a narrow exception to Coleman that excuses procedural default caused by ineffective state habeas counsel, so they justify reopening Diaz’s case | Changes in decisional law alone are not extraordinary; Adams and circuit precedent hold Martinez does not, by itself, warrant 60(b)(6) relief | Denied — Martinez/Trevino do not constitute extraordinary circumstances to reopen final judgment |
| Whether equitable factors (Seven Elves factors) warrant 60(b)(6) relief here | Diaz’s diligence, evidentiary documentation, and the strength/uniqueness of his claims establish equities favoring reopening | Finality, state interest, prior merits consideration, and lack of demonstrated Strickland prejudice weigh against reopening | Denied — equities do not overcome finality; Diaz fails to show extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether GVRs or Supreme Court temporary stays while Trevino was pending undermine Adams or support reopening | The Supreme Court’s stays and subsequent GVRs in other cases indicate Adams is invalid or warrant equitable relief here | A GVR does not decide merits or bind other cases; stays/GVRs do not nullify Adams or justify reopening unrelated final judgments | Denied — GVRs/stays do not alter the Rule 60(b)(6) analysis in Diaz’s case |
| Whether a stay of execution was warranted pending 60(b)(6) relief | A stay is necessary because Martinez/Trevino likely allow merits review of previously defaulted claims | Without a viable 60(b)(6) vehicle, Diaz cannot show likelihood of success; equities and finality weigh against a stay | Denied — Diaz failed to show a likelihood of success or other factors supporting a stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances to reopen final habeas judgments)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (federal habeas barred for procedurally defaulted claims absent cause and prejudice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficiency and prejudice)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct. 2012) (narrow exception: ineffective assistance at initial-review collateral proceedings may establish cause for default of trial-ineffective-assistance claims)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (applies Martinez’s rationale to Texas system where direct appeal does not afford meaningful opportunity to raise Strickland claims)
- Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1981) (factors courts consider when deciding whether to reopen judgments under Rule 60)
- Adams v. Thaler, 679 F.3d 312 (5th Cir. 2012) (held Martinez did not constitute extraordinary circumstances for Rule 60(b)(6) relief)
- Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2002) (changes in decisional law generally not extraordinary for Rule 60(b)(6) in habeas context)