David Miller v. Tony Mays, 879 F.3d 691

Background

In 1981 David Miller murdered Lee Standifer; convicted of first-degree murder and ultimately sentenced to death after resentencing. Trial counsel presented lay mitigation evidence but did not retain or call any mental-health expert at resentencing.
Miller raised an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel (IATC) claim in his federal habeas petition alleging counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating mental-health evidence; the district court found the claim procedurally defaulted and dismissed Miller’s §2254 petition, which this Court affirmed in relevant part.
After the Supreme Court decided Martinez v. Ryan and Trevino v. Thaler (addressing when ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel can excuse procedural default), Miller moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) to vacate the habeas judgment and obtain merits review of his defaulted IATC claim.
The district court denied Rule 60(b)(6) relief, finding Martinez/Trevino alone do not constitute the extraordinary circumstances required, that Miller was not diligent in filing his motion, that finality interests weighed against reopening, and that his IATC claim was not plainly substantial.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying the equitable, case-specific Rule 60(b)(6) standard: it found Miller insufficiently diligent, credited strong finality interests given the long litigation history, and questioned whether Miller could show prejudice from counsel’s failure to retain an expert.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Martinez/Trevino by themselves constitute extraordinary circumstances for Rule 60(b)(6) relief	Martinez/Trevino create cause to excuse procedural default and thus justify reopening	Martinez/Trevino are change in decisional law and do not alone meet the extraordinary-circumstances standard	Change in law alone is usually insufficient; Martinez/Trevino do not automatically warrant Rule 60(b)(6) relief
Whether Miller was diligent in seeking Rule 60(b)(6) relief	Miller filed promptly after Trevino/Hodges clarified applicability and thus was diligent	Miller delayed (≈16–18 months after Martinez) and failed to raise Martinez in certiorari/rehearing petitions	Court held Miller was not sufficiently diligent; delay weighed against relief
Whether equitable balance (finality vs. justice) favors reopening	Miller’s interest in avoiding execution and lack of merits adjudication of IATC favor relief	State and judicial finality interests, given long procedural history, outweigh Miller’s equities	Finality and prolonged litigation history outweigh Miller’s interests; equities do not favor relief
Whether IATC claim is substantial (deficiency and prejudice)	Counsel was deficient for failing to consult or call an expert; post-conviction experts show new, mitigating mental-health/neurologic evidence likely to affect sentencing	Lay mitigation at resentencing presented substantially the same facts; post-conviction experts do not supply materially different evidence or guarantee prejudice	Court questioned whether expert evidence was substantially different or sufficient to show prejudice; did not deem the IATC claim unquestionably meritorious

Key Cases Cited

Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (narrow exception permitting cause to excuse procedural default when initial-review post-conviction counsel is ineffective)
Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (extends Martinez to states where direct appeal does not provide meaningful opportunity)
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (Rule 60(b)(6) relief in habeas context is available only for extraordinary circumstances)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (no constitutional right to counsel in state post-conviction proceedings; general rule on procedural default)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel’s failure to investigate mitigating evidence can be ineffective assistance)
McGuire v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst., 738 F.3d 741 (6th Cir.) (Martinez/Trevino do not alone tip the Rule 60(b)(6) balance)