In Re: Alfred Bourgeois
902 F.3d 446
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Alfred Bourgeois, a federal inmate on death row, seeks authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming intellectual disability under Atkins v. Virginia.
- Bourgeois previously raised an Atkins claim in an earlier § 2255 motion that was rejected; he now relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Moore v. Texas to revive the claim.
- Section 2255(h) permits second-or-successive federal § 2255 motions only if certified under the procedures of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 and for specified new evidence or new law.
- 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) provides a strict bar: a claim presented in a prior habeas application must be dismissed if presented again in a successive application (text references § 2254 applications).
- The Fifth Circuit (in unpublished decisions) and every other circuit to consider the question has held that § 2244(b)(1)’s relitigation bar is incorporated into § 2255(h), barring relitigation of claims previously presented.
- The court denied Bourgeois’s request, concluding his Atkins claim was previously presented and thus barred from consideration in a successive § 2255 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Bourgeois's Argument | Government/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2244(b)(1)’s relitigation bar applies to successive federal § 2255 motions | Bourgeois: § 2244(b)(1) references only § 2254 (state habeas) so it should not bar federal § 2255 successive motions; expressio unius means exclusion of federal prisoners | Cross-reference in § 2255(h) incorporates § 2244 procedures and its relitigation bar; statutory context and legislative history support treating federal and state prisoners alike | The relitigation bar applies; Bourgeois’s successive Atkins claim is barred |
| Whether Moore v. Texas changes viability of Bourgeois’s Atkins claim for authorization | Bourgeois: Moore’s decision supplies a new rule making his previously rejected Atkins claim viable | Relitigation bar prevents consideration regardless of Moore unless claim meets § 2255(h) certification criteria | Moore does not overcome § 2244(b)(1) bar here; authorization denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (holding execution of intellectually disabled defendants unconstitutional)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (clarified standards for adjudicating intellectual disability in death-penalty cases)
- Bennett v. United States, 119 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 1997) (legislative history does not distinguish between federal and state successive motions)
- In re Baptiste, 828 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2016) (applying § 2244(b)(1) bar to successive § 2255 motions and explaining policy against repetitive filings)
- POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 134 S. Ct. 2228 (Sup. Ct. 2014) (discussing expressio unius canon of construction)