898 F.3d 1098
11th Cir.2018Background
- Octavious Williams filed a pro se application under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) seeking permission to file a second or successive § 2254 habeas petition claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for recusal of an allegedly biased judge.
- Williams previously raised essentially the same ineffective-assistance/biased-judge claim in an earlier § 2254 petition, which the district court denied as untimely.
- Section 2244(b) bars second or successive claims that were presented previously and permits authorization only where the applicant shows either a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court or newly discovered facts meeting a clear-and-convincing standard.
- The Eleventh Circuit treats its determination on authorization as a prima facie, threshold review; panel orders granting or denying such motions historically have been issued quickly (statutorily within 30 days) on short pro se filings, often without government briefing.
- The court dismissed/denied Williams’s application: dismissed to the extent barred by § 2244(b)(1) (repetition of prior claim) and denied to the extent not barred because Williams identified no new constitutional rule or supporting authority.
- Two judges filed special concurrences (Wilson and Martin) criticizing the circuit’s practice of issuing published, binding panel orders on these gatekeeping motions—contending that rushed, nonadversarial, unappealable panel orders should not become binding precedent on merits panels.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams may obtain authorization to file a second/successive § 2254 for the same ineffective-assistance/biased-judge claim | Williams: claim rests on a new rule of constitutional law (no citation provided) | Government/Respondent: claim was previously presented; § 2244(b)(1) bars repetition | Court: Dismissed under § 2244(b)(1) to the extent the claim repeats the prior petition |
| Whether Williams made a prima facie showing under § 2244(b)(2)/(3) of a new, retroactive constitutional rule | Williams: contends (without citation) that a new rule supports his claim | Government: no supporting authority; applicant must identify/contain the new rule | Court: Denied because Williams failed to identify any new rule or authority satisfying § 2244(b)(2) |
| Proper scope and precedential effect of published panel orders resolving § 2244/§ 2255 gatekeeping motions | Williams (implicitly): sought relief via the normal motions process | Concurring judges: argue published motions-panel orders should not bind merits panels because they result from nonadversarial, time-constrained proceedings | Opinions (Wilson & Martin, concurring): criticize binding effect of published panel orders (post St. Hubert) and urge rulemaking or procedural safeguards |
| Whether the Eleventh Circuit’s practice of deciding gatekeeping motions on short, unbriefed filings and publishing those orders is consistent with sound appellate procedure | Implicitly, Williams benefits if permissive gatekeeping is applied | Circuit (majority practice): routinely resolves within 30 days without government brief; treats some orders as precedent (per St. Hubert) | Concurring judges: fault the practice as procedurally infirm and an outlier among circuits; call for circuit rules to limit publication and provide mechanisms for en banc review |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 485 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir.) (threshold prima facie review for successive habeas authorization)
- In re Mills, 101 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir. 1996) (claims presented in a prior application must be dismissed as successive)
- In re Everett, 797 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2015) (application of § 2244(b)(1) to successive § 2254 claims)
- In re Saint Fleur, 824 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2016) (published motions-panel order finding certain offenses qualify as crimes of violence)
- United States v. St. Hubert, 883 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2018) (panel held published § 2244(b) panel orders bind subsequent panels)
- In re Lambrix, 776 F.3d 789 (11th Cir. 2015) (discussion of courts’ authority to rehear panel orders en banc)
- In re Henry, 757 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2014) (Eleventh Circuit’s recognition of the 30-day statutory deadline for motions-panel decisions)
- In re Welch, 884 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2018) (published panel order holding certain Alabama offenses qualify as violent crimes under ACCA)