Franqui v. Florida
638 F.3d 1368
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Franqui, a Florida prisoner, filed a federal habeas petition (28 U.S.C. §2254) which the district court denied on the merits.
- Post-judgment, Franqui through counsel filed a Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from the judgment alleging his counsel omitted a Bruton claim.
- The 60(b) motion asserted the attorney promised to include the Bruton claim but did not, and Franqui learned of the omission only after the petition was denied.
- The district court denied the 60(b) motion on the merits; the Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The controlling issue is whether a 60(b) motion can be used to bypass AEDPA’s restrictions by presenting a new habeas claim based on counsel’s omission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b) motion is proper or a second/successive petition | Franqui argues 60(b) appropriate to challenge counsel omission | State contends motion is an improper attempt to refile a habeas claim | Motion is a second/successive petition; district court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether counsel’s omission of Bruton claim creates a defect in habeas proceedings | Omission constitutes extraordinary misconduct corrupting integrity | Omission alone not a defect in integrity under Gonzalez | Omission not sufficient to justify 60(b) relief under Gonzalez |
| Whether a 60(b) motion can be used to secure relief based on new habeas grounds | 60(b) should permit relief given grave counsel misconduct | 60(b) cannot be used to obtain merits review of new habeas grounds | No; depends on integrity of proceedings, which is not established here |
| Effect of petitioner's signing/reading of petition on integrity analysis | Petitioner contemporaneously signed despite not reading petition | Petitioner bore responsibility for verification | Petitioner’s signing does not salvage 60(b) relief; still a barred second petition |
| Relation to AEDPA and proportionality with Gonzalez | Gonzalez allows relief for integrity issues | Gonzalez prohibits bypassing AEDPA rules | 60(b) relief improper; AEDPA controls; dismiss for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (60(b) motion cannot be used to raise new habeas claims to circumvent AEDPA)
- Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2007) (needs permission for second/successive petitions under AEDPA)
- Zakrzewski v. McDonough, 490 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2007) (recognizes 60(b) as vehicle when alleging attorney authority issues (omissions context))
- Zakrzewski v. McNeil, 573 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2009) (further development of omission/attorney conduct in 60(b) context)