935 F.3d 1210
11th Cir.2019Background
- Gary Bowles was convicted of three murders and sentenced to death; his conviction became final in 2002 after direct review ended.
- He filed a first federal habeas petition in 2008; it did not assert intellectual-disability claims and was denied on the merits.
- Bowles later pursued successive state Rule 3.851 motions; his October 19, 2017 motion asserted intellectual disability based on Atkins, Hall, and Moore and was denied by Florida courts as untimely.
- He sought authorization from the Eleventh Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) to file a second or successive § 2254 petition raising intellectual-disability claims and moved to stay his execution (set for Aug. 22, 2019).
- The Eleventh Circuit denied authorization and a stay, concluding Bowles failed to make the prima facie showing required by § 2244(b)(2): his claim did not rely on a new, retroactive Supreme Court rule previously unavailable, and did not meet the narrow newly discovered-facts gateway.
- A concurring opinion explained disagreement with circuit precedent, arguing Hall and equitable principles should allow review of a potentially meritorious Atkins-based claim, but the concurrence concurred in the denial as bound by precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bowles may file a second/successive § 2254 based on Atkins/Hall/Moore under § 2244(b)(2)(A) | Atkins/Hall/Moore make an Atkins-based claim newly available (Hall made IQ 70 cutoff invalid; Moore clarified standards), so claim was previously unavailable | Atkins was not new (2002); Hall and Moore either not made retroactive by SCOTUS or were available earlier; petitioner could have pursued Atkins earlier | Denied — claim does not rely on a new rule made retroactive by SCOTUS that was previously unavailable |
| Whether the publication of new medical/diagnostic evidence (DSM changes, Flynn effect, new IQ test results) makes the claim "previously unavailable" | New testing and medical norming (WAIS-IV, Flynn effect, DSM-5) provide a factual predicate not available earlier | Changes in diagnostic practice are not a new constitutional rule; factual developments are governed by § 2244(b)(2)(B), which doesn't authorize relief for sentence-eligibility claims | Denied — diagnostic updates do not satisfy § 2244(b)(2)(A) and do not fit § 2244(b)(2)(B) as construed in this Circuit |
| Whether § 2244(b)(2)(B) (newly discovered facts) permits a successive petition asserting actual innocence of the death penalty | Bowles asserts factual predicate (IQ scores, adaptive deficits) could not have been discovered earlier and shows innocence of death penalty | Eleventh Circuit precedent limits § 2244(b)(2)(B) to claims attacking guilt; courts have rejected an "innocence of death-penalty" gateway post‑AEDPA | Denied — Hill controls: § 2244(b)(2)(B) does not authorize successive claims asserting only ineligibility for death |
| Whether equitable principles (e.g., Holland, Sawyer) or futility justify an exception to AEDPA’s second/successive limits | Equitable relief or an actual-innocence-of-death-penalty exception should permit review where state rules made earlier filing futile | AEDPA’s statutory gates are exclusive; Holland does not create an equitable path around § 2244(b) and courts must follow Congress’s text and circuit precedent | Denied — no equitable exception recognized; petitioner may seek relief only through the statutory gateways or petition SCOTUS directly |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (constitutional bar on executing intellectually disabled individuals)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (Florida's rigid IQ cutoff unconstitutional; additional evidence may establish intellectual disability)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (clarified appropriate clinical standards for adjudicating intellectual disability)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling principles in habeas proceedings)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (retroactivity analysis and substantive/procedural distinction)
- Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (actual-innocence exception for death-penalty sentencing facts)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (framework for retroactivity of new constitutional rules)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (ineffective-assistance-of-post‑trial‑counsel framework affecting defaulted claims)