904 F.3d 336
5th Cir.2018Background
- Chris Gilkers was convicted of second-degree murder in Louisiana (sentenced to life) and exhausted state appeals; state postconviction relief was denied by the trial court and then by the Louisiana Fifth Circuit and Louisiana Supreme Court (initial Fifth Circuit denial was unsigned and issued during a period when the court reportedly routed pro se writs to a single judge).
- Gilkers filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied the petition on the merits (after ‘looking through’ unexplained state appellate denials to the trial court’s reasoned order); the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- After revelations about the Fifth Circuit’s single-judge practice (Cordero), the Louisiana Supreme Court remanded many affected pro se writs for re-review by three-judge panels; the Fifth Circuit reconsidered Gilkers’ postconviction writ and again denied relief, this time with reasons.
- Gilkers sought to reopen his original federal habeas judgment via Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing that the Cordero events created a defect in the integrity of his prior federal habeas proceeding and that the district court’s prior judgment was effectively based on a now-vacated state-court ruling.
- The district court construed Gilkers’ Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition and denied relief; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding (a) the motion was not a true Rule 60(b) attack on the integrity of the federal proceeding and (b) even if it were, Gilkers was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(5) or (6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gilkers’ Rule 60(b) motion is an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition | Gilkers: Cordero produced a new, reasoned state-court judgment; therefore the prior federal judgment is defective and must be reopened under Rule 60(b) | State: Motion seeks merits relitigation of § 2254 claims and thus is a successive petition requiring § 2244(b)(3) authorization | Motion was properly construed as an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition and denied |
| Whether Cordero-created state-court infirmities compromised the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings | Gilkers: The initial Fifth Circuit practice infected the federal proceeding because the federal court deferred to state rulings that were tainted | State: The federal courts ‘looked through’ to the state trial court’s reasoned order; the defective Fifth Circuit practice did not affect the federal merits adjudication | Court: No defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceeding—AEDPA deference was properly applied to the trial court’s reasons |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(5) or (6) relief is available based on Cordero | Gilkers: Judgment is based on an earlier state judgment reversed/vacated (Rule 60(b)(5)) and extraordinary circumstances justify reopening (Rule 60(b)(6)) | State: The district judgment was not based on the flawed Fifth Circuit decision and the Cordero circumstances are not extraordinary enough to justify relief | Court: Rule 60(b)(5) inapplicable; Rule 60(b)(6) relief not warranted |
| Whether Magwood requires treating the post-Cordero state decision as making a new, non-successive habeas petition possible | Gilkers: Magwood supports that an intervening state judgment can make a new petition non-successive | State: Magwood applies when a new sentence is imposed; re-affirmation of denial does not create a new, non-successive petition | Court: Magwood does not help—reaffirmation of denial is not a new sentencing judgment and petition is successive |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (Rule 60(b) in § 2254 cases; distinguishes true Rule 60(b) motions from disguised successive habeas petitions)
- Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (intervening new sentence can render a later § 2254 petition non-successive)
- Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188 (federal courts should ‘look through’ unexplained state-court denials to the last reasoned state decision for AEDPA deference)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
- In re Gentras, 666 F.3d 910 (5th Cir.) (infirmities in state postconviction processes are not relief grounds under § 2254)