David Patterson v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden
689 F. App'x 360
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 1984 David Patterson was convicted of second-degree murder in Louisiana and sentenced to life without parole.
- Patterson filed multiple 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petitions pre- and post-AEDPA; earlier petitions were denied on the merits or as abusive, and later ones were treated as unauthorized successive petitions and denied authorization by the Fifth Circuit.
- After state-court decisions including State v. Cordero, Patterson filed Rule 60(b) motions in district court seeking relief from the prior denials, arguing those denials should be set aside under Rule 60(b)(5).
- The district court construed the motions in part as successive § 2254 applications, transferred them to the Fifth Circuit, and also implicitly considered part of the motions as true Rule 60(b) claims and denied them on the merits.
- Patterson appealed the district court’s transfer order, arguing the motions attacked procedural defects and thus were true Rule 60(b) motions rather than successive habeas applications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b) motions were "true" Rule 60(b) motions or successive § 2254 applications | Patterson: motions attacked procedural defects and relied on State v. Cordero; thus they were proper Rule 60(b) motions (esp. under Rule 60(b)(5)) | District court/Respondent: motions in part raised or attacked merits and were successive § 2254 filings requiring circuit authorization | The district court appropriately treated the motions partly as successive; it also implicitly denied any true Rule 60(b) relief on the merits; transfer order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (Rule 60(b) that attacks merits resolution or raises new claims is a successive § 2254 application)
- In re Bradford, 660 F.3d 226 (5th Cir.) (collateral-order jurisdiction over transfer of unauthorized successive habeas petitions)
- In re Sepulvado, 707 F.3d 550 (5th Cir.) (district court lacks jurisdiction to consider truly successive § 2254 petitions without circuit authorization)
- United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683 (5th Cir.) (jurisdictional considerations for appeals of transfer orders)
- State v. Cordero, 993 So.2d 203 (La. 2008) (state-court decision relied on by Patterson to challenge prior judgments)