Henderson v. Thaler
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23614
| 5th Cir. | 2010Background
- James Lee Henderson, a Texas death-row inmate, filed a successive federal habeas petition asserting an Atkins claim that he is mentally retarded and ineligible for execution.
- The district court denied relief as time-barred under AEDPA, but remanded to consider Holland v. Florida's tolling standards and whether equitable tolling applies.
- This court granted authorization to file a successive petition, signaling possible tolling due to rare and exceptional circumstances, to be determined by the district court.
- Henderson argued for equitable tolling based on the Texas two-forum rule and the overall diligence in pursuing his Atkins claim, including actions after certiorari denial.
- The district court assumed the two-forum rule as a potential extraordinary circumstance but concluded Henderson was not diligently pursuing the Atkins claim, thus denying tolling; the court did not address the merits of the Atkins claim due to the tolling question.
- On appeal, Henderson contends the district court must consider his Atkins claim regardless of tolling, and separately, that actual innocence of the death penalty could compel reaching the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Henderson is time-barred under AEDPA or entitled to equitable tolling under Holland v. Florida | Henderson seeks Holland tolling for rare/extraordinary circumstances | Thaler argues no adequate diligence under Holland and no exceptional circumstance | Remanded to assess Holland-based equitable tolling first; district court to determine tolling applicability in light of Holland. |
| Whether Henderson should reach the merits of his Atkins claim based on actual innocence of the death penalty | Henderson argues actual innocence (death-penalty ineligibility) warrants considering Atkins merits | State argues there is no actual-innocence gateway to Atkins and no exception to AEDPA here | Court affirms dismissal of actual-innocence gateway; no such exception to AEDPA applies; merits not reached absent tolling. |
| What standard governs the district court’s review of equitable tolling post-Holland | Henderson believes reasonable diligence applies | State contends Holland clarifies the diligence standard | Remand to apply Holland’s reasonable-diligence and extraordinary-circumstance framework; allow evidentiary development if tolling is granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (per se rule against execution of mentally retarded)
- Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (U.S. 2007) (establishes general tolling standards; diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2005) (same tolling framework criticism of attorney error not warranting tolling)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (AEDPA tolling available; case-by-case fact-intensive inquiry; reasonable diligence)
- Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1992) (actual innocence concept extending to death-penalty eligibility)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (actual innocence gateway with new evidence; not applicable to Atkins)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1993) (actual innocence requires new evidence of factual innocence)
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1986) (death-penalty immunity for insanity)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (young-age death-penalty considerations)
- Rivera v. Quarterman, 505 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2007) (tolls and Atkins claims considerations in Fifth Circuit)
- In re Wilson, 442 F.3d 872 (5th Cir. 2006) (AEDPA tolling considerations for Atkins claims)