Hernandez v. Thaler
630 F.3d 420
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hernandez, convicted of aggravated robbery in 1997, received 45-year term; direct appeal denied final March 7, 2000.
- Hernandez’s state habeas petition filed June 17, 2003; CCA granted part and allowed out-of-time discretionary review, returning him to position to pursue petition.
- CCA denied discretionary review January–March 2005; state petition for discretionary review denied March 16, 2005.
- Federal habeas petition filed May 27, 2005; district court dismissed May 4, 2006 as time-barred under AEDPA, final judgment entered the same day.
- This Court denied a COA in December 2006.
- On March 16, 2010 Hernandez filed a document treated as a second habeas petition (docketed as 5:10-cv-0219); the district court later dismissed as second/successive and time-barred; Hernandez timely filed a notice of appeal in cause 5:05-cv-0533 claiming the March 30, 2010 order, though the March 30 order was entered in 5:10-cv-0219.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the March 16, 2010 filing can be treated as a Rule 60(b)(6) motion. | Hernandez argues Jimenez retroactively reset AEDPA clock. | Salinas controlled; no extraordinary circumstance. | Yes, construed as Rule 60(b)(6) motion. |
| Whether the district court correctly treated Hernandez’s filing as a second/successive petition. | Claims identical to 2005 petition; should be considered via Rule 60(b)(6). | Untimely second/successive petition without authorization. | It is treated as a Rule 60(b)(6) motion, not a new petition. |
| Whether the post-judgment change in controlling law (Jimenez) warrants Rule 60(b)(6) relief. | Jimenez retroactively makes petition timely; merits should be reached. | Post-judgment changes in law do not qualify as extraordinary under Rule 60(b)(6). | No relief under Rule 60(b)(6) for the Jimenez change. |
| Whether the mislabeling of the appeal docket number divests jurisdiction. | Notice of appeal shows intent to appeal the March 30, 2010 order. | Labeling error does not prejudice and intent is clear. | Jurisdiction retained; appeal proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salinas v. Dretke, 354 F.3d 425 (5th Cir.2004) (AEDPA timing prior rule (overruled by Jimenez))
- Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (S. Ct. 2009) (new method of calculating AEDPA limitations (retroactivity context))
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (S. Ct. 2005) (Rule 60(b) relief limitations in habeas context)
- Stoot v. Cain, 570 F.3d 669 (5th Cir.2009) (pro se filings liberal construction; jurisdictional concerns)
- Salinas, 354 F.3d at 429, - (-) (citational reference for not restarting AEDPA clock)
- H Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212 (5th Cir.2002) (changes in decisional law not extraordinary for Rule 60(b)(6))