Cary Michael Lambrix v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
851 F.3d 1158
11th Cir.2017Background
- Cary Lambrix was convicted in 1984 of two 1983 murders and sentenced to death; his initial federal habeas (28 U.S.C. § 2254) was denied on the merits in 1992 after evidentiary hearings and affirmed on appeal.
- Over three decades Lambrix filed numerous state and federal collateral petitions, successive state 3.850/3.851 motions, and multiple requests to file successive § 2254 petitions; state and federal courts repeatedly denied relief as untimely, successive, or on the merits.
- In 2015 Lambrix moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) and (b)(6) to vacate the 1992 federal judgment, invoking Martinez v. Ryan (and related authority) to excuse procedural defaults and seeking to reopen claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel with newly proffered evidence.
- The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion as untimely, concluded Martinez did not apply to claims already litigated on the merits, and ruled Martinez alone is not an "extraordinary circumstance" under Rule 60(b)(6).
- Lambrix sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Eleventh Circuit to appeal the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion; the panel denied the COA, holding reasonable jurists could not debate that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez v. Ryan permits reopening of Lambrix’s 1992 habeas judgment | Martinez (and Trevino) excuse procedural default caused by ineffective post-conviction counsel, entitling Lambrix to litigate ineffective-trial-counsel claims now | Martinez is inapplicable because Lambrix’s ineffective-trial-counsel claims were litigated and decided on the merits in the initial § 2254 proceedings | Martinez does not apply; Lambrix’s claims were adjudicated on the merits, not procedurally defaulted; no basis to reopen |
| Whether change in law (Martinez) constitutes an "extraordinary circumstance" under Rule 60(b)(6) | The Martinez change (and surrounding facts/alleged state obstruction and actual innocence proffers) are extraordinary and justify reopening | Martinez alone is not an extraordinary circumstance; Arthur controls and forecloses Martinez-based Rule 60(b)(6) relief absent rare facts like Buck | Not extraordinary; under Eleventh Circuit precedent Martinez cannot by itself justify Rule 60(b)(6) relief |
| Timeliness of Rule 60(b) motion | Motion filed within a reasonable time after Martinez and related events; equitable reasons justify reopening | District court found the motion untimely given Lambrix’s extensive prior filings and delays | District court did not abuse discretion in deeming the Rule 60(b) motion untimely |
| Whether COA should issue to appeal Rule 60(b) denial | Lambrix argues jurists could debate procedural ruling and underlying constitutional IAC claims | Government argues claims are meritless, foreclosed, successive/time-barred, and COA is unwarranted | COA denied: reasonable jurists could not debate that the district court properly exercised discretion and applied controlling precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Lambrix v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 756 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2014) (prior Eleventh Circuit decision summarizing Lambrix’s extensive collateral-litigation history and rejecting Martinez-based relief)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b) relief in habeas context is extraordinary and limited)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (narrow equitable exception to excuse procedural default of ineffective-trial-counsel claims when initial-review collateral counsel was ineffective)
- Arthur v. Thomas, 739 F.3d 611 (11th Cir. 2014) (Martinez-based change in law is not by itself an extraordinary circumstance for Rule 60(b)(6))
- Griffin v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 787 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 2015) (Rule 60(b)(5) inapplicable to prior denial of federal habeas relief)
- Gonzalez v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 366 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2004) (COA required to appeal denial of Rule 60(b) in § 2254/§ 2255 proceedings)
- Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. (2017) (Supreme Court reopening Rule 60(b)(6) relief where Martinez applied and extraordinary circumstances existed)