In re: Cary Michael Lambrix, 776 F.3d 789

Background

In 1984 Lambrix was convicted in Florida of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death; key trial evidence came from Frances Smith and corroborating physical and witness testimony.
Lambrix pursued extensive state and federal postconviction litigation, including a 1988 federal §2254 petition and multiple successive state 3.850 motions; earlier federal appeals and successive applications denied relief.
In 2010 this Court denied a pro se application for leave to file a successive §2254 petition (In re Lambrix), concluding several of the same claims were barred by 28 U.S.C. §2244(b) or failed the §2244(b)(2)(B) standard.
The instant counseled successive application sought authorization to raise eight claims based largely on alleged newly discovered Brady/Giglio evidence (immunity deal for Smith, recantation, sexual relationship with investigator, tire-iron hairs, judge bias, false testimony about a pond, conspiracy) and a freestanding actual-innocence claim.
The panel applied the law-of-the-case and prior-panel-precedent rules and §2244(b)’s standards (new-law prong and the newly-discovered-facts + clear-and-convincing actual-innocence prong) and concluded Lambrix’s application failed for multiple independent reasons.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lambrix may relitigate claims previously raised in earlier federal petitions	Lambrix: new evidence warrants revisiting prior claims to avoid manifest injustice	State: §2244(b)(1) bars claims presented earlier; new evidence does not create a new claim	Denied — prior-panel precedent and In re Hill bind court; new evidence does not avoid §2244(b)(1) bar
Whether alleged newly discovered Brady/Giglio evidence satisfies §2244(b)(2)(B)	Lambrix: withheld/impeaching evidence (immunity, recantation, sexual relationship, tire iron hairs, conspiracy, pond testimony) is newly discovered and would show actual innocence	State: evidence was discoverable with due diligence and would not, cumulatively, meet clear-and-convincing standard to show no reasonable juror would convict	Denied — Lambrix failed (i) to show due diligence; and (ii) to make prima facie clear-and-convincing showing required by §2244(b)(2)(B)
Whether Schlup/Herrera-based freestanding actual-innocence theory allows a successive petition without satisfying §2244(b)(2)(B)	Lambrix: claims and new evidence establish fundamental miscarriage of justice under Schlup/House	State: §2244(b)(2)(B) independently requires clear-and-convincing proof plus a constitutional violation; Schlup does not override statutory gateway	Denied — prior precedent (In re Davis) requires §2244(b)(2)(B) showing; Lambrix did not establish it
Whether law-of-the-case or prior-panel-precedent exceptions allow reconsideration here	Lambrix: earlier order was pro se and should not bind counseled application; new evidence justifies reconsideration	State: prior published three-judge §2244(b) orders are binding; no pro-se exception; only narrow exceptions apply	Denied — law-of-the-case and prior-panel-precedent apply; no applicable exception shown

Key Cases Cited

Lambrix v. Sec’y, Florida Dep’t of Corr., 756 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2014) (affirming denial of counsel and noting petitioner has no viable federal remedies left)
In re Lambrix, 624 F.3d 1355 (11th Cir. 2010) (denying prior successive application and holding many claims failed §2244(b) criteria)
In re Hill, 715 F.3d 284 (11th Cir. 2013) (new evidence supporting a previously presented claim does not avoid §2244(b)(1) bar)
In re Davis, 565 F.3d 810 (11th Cir. 2009) (§2244(b)(2)(B) requires actual-innocence showing by clear and convincing evidence and a constitutional violation)
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (assumed high threshold for a freestanding actual-innocence claim in capital cases)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (describing miscarriage-of-justice gateway for defaulted claims)
In re Boshears, 110 F.3d 1538 (11th Cir. 1997) (due-diligence requirement for newly discovered evidence in successive petitions)
In re Magwood, 113 F.3d 1544 (11th Cir. 1997) (same)
United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008) (prior-panel-precedent rule: prior panel holdings bind subsequent panels)