855 F.3d 833
8th Cir.2017Background
- Don William Davis, a death-row inmate, filed a Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief to obtain a merits ruling on a procedurally defaulted ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim related to mitigation evidence at the penalty phase.
- The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion; it granted a certificate of appealability on the issue. Davis sought a stay of execution pending appeal; execution was scheduled for April 17, 2017.
- Davis relied on intervening Supreme Court decisions (Martinez, Trevino) and the recent Buck v. Davis decision to argue extraordinary circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
- The district court found Davis’s motion untimely (filed April 12, 2017, five days before execution) and not showing the extraordinary circumstances required under Rule 60(b)(6).
- The Eighth Circuit denied the stay, concluding Davis failed to show a significant possibility of success on the merits and that Buck’s race-based factual predicates did not apply to his case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis’s Rule 60(b) motion attacks procedural ruling or presents a new claim | Davis: Rule 60(b) challenges the prior procedural-default ruling and should be reopened under Buck | State: The motion is untimely and lacks the extraordinary circumstances required; Buck’s facts differ | Held: Motion fails to show significant possibility of success; not comparable to Buck |
| Whether Buck creates extraordinary circumstances for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) | Davis: Buck’s recognition that Martinez defaults can be reopened applies here | State: Buck turned on race-based sentencing and unique public-interest factors absent here | Held: Buck’s extraordinary facts (race-based sentencing, broad institutional injury) do not apply to Davis |
| Timeliness of Rule 60(b) motion | Davis: Relies on new Supreme Court authority to justify late filing | State: Motion filed years after Martinez/Trevino and five days before execution — untimely | Held: Court found the record strongly supports untimeliness; reasonable-time requirement not met |
| Standard for stay of execution | Davis: Needs equitable relief to litigate defaulted IATC claim | State: Stay requires significant possibility of success; state has strong interest in finality | Held: No stay — Davis failed to show significant possibility of success on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) (stay of execution is equitable; movant must show significant possibility of success)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (movant must present evidence showing significant possibility of success)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b) that presents a claim is a successive habeas application)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (procedural-default exception for ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims when initial-review collateral proceedings lack effective counsel)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (Martinez exception extends where state procedures deny a meaningful opportunity to raise IATC on direct appeal)
- Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017) (extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6) where race-based expert testimony may have contributed to a death sentence)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby (see above for Rule 60(b) framework), cited for distinction between procedural-error attack and merits attack
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) (factors for vacating judgments include risk of injustice and public confidence)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural-default doctrine)
- Johnson v. Lombardi, 809 F.3d 388 (8th Cir.) (stay standard applied in death-penalty context)
- Ward v. Norris, 577 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2009) (application of Gonzalez in habeas/Rule 60(b) context)
- Watkins v. Lundell, 169 F.3d 540 (8th Cir. 1999) (reasonable-time determination for Rule 60(b) reviewed for abuse of discretion)