967 F.3d 1231
11th Cir.2020Background
- In 1992 Eugene Clemons shot and killed DEA Special Agent George Althouse; he was convicted federally (life) and in Alabama (death sentence) with state conviction final when certiorari was denied in 1999.
- After Atkins v. Virginia (2002) Clemons raised an intellectual-disability (Atkins) claim in state post‑conviction (Rule 32); the state courts held evidentiary hearings and denied relief in 2004–2005; Alabama’s highest court denied certiorari in 2010.
- Clemons filed a federal habeas petition in 2010 asserting an Atkins claim and 31 other claims; the district court allowed only the Atkins claim to proceed and dismissed the rest as untimely under AEDPA’s one‑year rule.
- The 31 claims were rejected as untimely because Clemons’s initial Rule 32 filing (Dec. 27, 1999) lacked the required filing fee or an in forma pauperis motion and therefore was not a “properly filed” state application to toll AEDPA; the corrected filing occurred after the federal deadline.
- Clemons sought equitable tolling based on his counsel’s reliance on misinformation from a clerk’s office employee; the courts held attorney negligence (without abandonment or other extraordinary misconduct) does not justify equitable tolling.
- On the Atkins merits the state court discounted several very low IQ scores as tainted by malingering and found the remaining valid scores in the 70–80 range; it also relied on evidence of adaptive strengths over Dr. Golden’s ABAS-II results and denied Atkins relief; the federal court affirmed under AEDPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / equitable tolling of 31 claims | Clemons: counsel relied on clerk misinformation; equitable tolling should apply | State: initial Rule 32 was not "properly filed"; attorney negligence cannot support equitable tolling | Equitable tolling denied; claims untimely and dismissed |
| Intellectual‑functioning prong (Atkins/Perkins) | Clemons: aggregated valid IQ scores average ≈70; evidence supports significantly subaverage functioning | State: low scores were invalid due to malingering; valid scores cluster in 70–80 range | State court reasonably discounted malingered scores; Clemons failed to show significantly subaverage functioning |
| Adaptive‑functioning prong (Atkins/Perkins) | Clemons: ABAS‑II and expert testimony show substantial adaptive deficits; state overemphasized adaptive strengths | State: record shows adaptive strengths (employment, relationships, evasive/complex criminal conduct); pre‑Moore law permitted such focus | State court’s reliance on adaptive strengths was permissible under then‑controlling law; claim denied |
| Effect of later Supreme Court decisions (Hall / Moore) and AEDPA deference | Clemons: post‑Atkins cases (Hall/Moore) counsel reevaluation, would alter result | State: Hall and Moore post‑date the state decision; Hall not retroactive on collateral review; AEDPA requires deference | Court applied AEDPA; Hall not retroactive; Moore post‑dates decision and cannot be used to show state court unreasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (execution of intellectually disabled persons unconstitutional)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA standard for federal habeas review)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012) (attorney abandonment can justify equitable tolling)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) (limits use of strict IQ cutoff; mandates consideration of margin of error and adaptive evidence)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) (criticizes reliance on lay stereotypes and emphasizes adaptive deficits in Atkins analysis)
- Kilgore v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 805 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2015) (Hall not retroactive on collateral review; discussion of Atkins application)
- Cadet v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 853 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2017) (attorney negligence generally insufficient for equitable tolling)
- Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305 (2015) (deference to state‑court factfinding on habeas review)
- Shoop v. Hill, 139 S. Ct. 504 (2019) (declines to apply Moore retroactively on collateral review)