452 F. App'x 423
5th Cir.2011Background
- Buck was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death; execution scheduled for Sep 15, 2011.
- During punishment, Buck called Dr. Quijano who testified about future dangerousness and noted race as a factor; Buck’s race-based testimony was challenged.
- The prosecutor cross-examined Quijano on race and Buck’s defense later referenced his low likelihood of future violence; no race was argued by Buck’s counsel in closing.
- In 2000, Texas AG publicly stated that six capital cases, including Buck’s, involved race in expert testimony and would not contest equal protection claims in federal courts; Buck filed federal habeas petitions later (2004).
- Buck’s federal habeas petitions were denied; Buck sought COA in this court, which was denied in 2009; he filed new motions in 2011 seeking relief from judgments and reconsideration.
- This opinion denies Buck’s application for a COA on his equal protection/due process argument as a successive habeas petition and denies relief on Rule 60(b)/(d) grounds as to all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buck’s equal protection claim is a successive habeas petition. | Buck argues State misled courts by omitting that defense witnesses questioned Quijano in other cases. | State contends the claim is not new rule or newly discovered facts; not sufficiently extraordinary. | Denied; treated as an application for permission to file a successive petition and denied. |
| Whether Buck could obtain a COA to challenge the district court’s Rule 60 denials based on alleged misrepresentations. | Buck asserts misrepresentations and omissions tainted habeas proceedings. | Court found no substantial showing of a constitutional violation and no COA warranted. | Denied; no substantial showing of a due process/equal protection violation that would deserve encouragement to proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b) relief requires extraordinary circumstances; changes in law apply to these cases)
- Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000) (change in law affecting timing of reviews under AEDPA)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (threshold COA standard for habeas petitions; substantial showing of denial of rights)
- Balentine v. Thaler, 626 F.3d 842 (2010) (AEDPA review standards; timeliness and diligence considerations)
- Jackson v. Thaler, 348 F. App’x 29 (5th Cir. 2009) (Rule 60(d) and fraud-on-the-court considerations; appellate approach)