648 F. App'x 388
5th Cir.2016Background
- David Leonard Wood was convicted of murder in Texas (1992) and sentenced to death; state courts denied his initial state habeas petition in 2001.
- Wood filed a federal habeas petition in 2002 (amended Oct. 2, 2002) but did not raise an Atkins (intellectual disability) claim, though Atkins was decided June 20, 2002.
- The district court denied relief in 2006; the Fifth Circuit denied a COA in 2007 and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2008.
- After new counsel obtained a stay of execution, Wood pursued an Atkins claim in state court; the state court held a hearing (2011) and denied relief in 2013; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed in 2014.
- Wood moved in 2015 for authorization from the Fifth Circuit to file a successive federal habeas petition based on Atkins; the panel had to decide whether Atkins was “previously unavailable” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A).
- The Fifth Circuit applied a feasibility standard (adopted from the Eleventh Circuit) and concluded Wood could have amended his pending federal petition and sought a stay between March 30, 2005 (Rhines) and April 4, 2006 (district court judgment), so Atkins was not shown to be previously unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wood may obtain authorization to file a successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A) based on Atkins | Wood: Atkins is a new retroactive rule; he did not raise Atkins earlier because it became available only later and procedural barriers (Texas two‑forum rule) made amendment infeasible | Respondent: Atkins was available after Rhines and Soffar removed procedural barriers; Wood had time (Mar 30, 2005–Apr 4, 2006) to amend and seek a stay | Denied — Wood failed to make a prima facie showing that Atkins was previously unavailable |
| Standard for "previously unavailable" when new rule issued while initial § 2254 pending | Wood: new rule issued during pendency should make claim unavailable if exhaustion and state rules prevented amendment | Respondent: courts evaluate feasibility under the particular circumstances; no categorical unavailability | Court adopted a feasibility standard (must show it was not feasible to amend/stay) |
| Whether Texas’s two‑forum rule made amendment/stay infeasible | Wood: two‑forum rule prevented simultaneous federal mixed petition or return to state court | Respondent: Ex parte Soffar (2004) and Rhines (2005) removed that barrier if a federal stay was sought | Court: Soffar and Rhines alleviated the barrier; Wood did not show other impediments |
| Whether Wood made prima facie showing of intellectual disability and statute‑of‑limitations issues | Wood: alleged intellectual disability and relied on Atkins | Respondent: procedural threshold not met so court need not reach merits or limitations | Court: did not reach merits or statute‑of‑limitations because unavailability prerequisite not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (held death penalty unconstitutional for intellectually disabled defendants)
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (district courts may stay mixed habeas petitions in limited circumstances)
- In re Campbell, 750 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 2014) (defines prima facie showing for authorization to file successive petition)
- Leal Garcia v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2009) (discusses availability when new rule issues during pendency but declines categorical rule)
- Mathis v. Thaler, 616 F.3d 461 (5th Cir. 2010) (addresses interaction of Texas procedures and federal habeas practice)
- In re Everett, 797 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2015) (adopts feasibility standard for availability when rule announced during pendency)
- Felker v. Turpin, 83 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 1996) (addresses successive petition gatekeeping and availability)
- Ex parte Soffar, 143 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals permitted consideration of state petitions where federal court stays proceedings)