Ivory Peterson v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
676 F. App'x 827
11th Cir.2017Background
- Ivory Peterson, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se, appealed the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion challenging denial of his prior Rule 60(b) motion and the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition.
- The certificate of appealability focused on whether the district court erred by failing to consider or misconstruing Claim One of Peterson’s § 2254 petition (a Batson challenge).
- Peterson argued his Batson claim challenged the prosecutor’s strike of prospective juror Saulsberry (an African-American), supported by trial transcript excerpts (Exhibits E and F), and that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting.
- The State and the district court treated Peterson’s Batson claim as challenging the strike of a different juror, Shelton, and relied on the prosecution’s race-neutral reasons for striking Shelton to deny relief.
- The government conceded the district court misconstrued Peterson’s claim; the Eleventh Circuit held the district court failed to address all constitutional claims raised and thus abused its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief.
- The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded for the district court to consider Peterson’s Batson claim as to Saulsberry and all remaining claims in the § 2254 petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief where it misconstrued the Batson claim | Peterson: Batson claim targeted prosecution’s strike of Saulsberry; district court failed to address that claim | State: Peterson only challenged the strike of Shelton; race-neutral reasons for Shelton defeat Batson challenge | Court: Abuse of discretion; district court misconstrued claim and failed to resolve all § 2254 claims; vacated and remanded |
| Whether a Rule 60(b) appeal may re-litigate underlying judgment merits | Peterson: sought Rule 60(b) relief based on defective habeas proceeding integrity | State: Rule 60(b) cannot relitigate merits; should be limited | Court: Rule 60(b) cannot attack merits but can address defects in integrity; here misuse was procedural and required vacatur/remand |
| Duty of district courts to resolve all § 2254 claims | Peterson: district court must address every constitutional claim raised | State: (implicit) resolution as framed was sufficient | Court: Under Clisby district courts must resolve all constitutional claims; failure to do so warrants remand |
| Standard of review for denial of Rule 60(b) motion | Peterson: district court’s misreading was clear error | State: denial reviewed for abuse of discretion | Court: Review is for abuse of discretion; district court applied wrong analysis and erred |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Ford Motor Co., 88 F.3d 914 (11th Cir. 1996) (scope of appellate review of Rule 60(b) denial limited to abuse-of-discretion)
- Arthur v. Thomas, 739 F.3d 611 (11th Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard and when district court misapplies legal standard)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b) in habeas context: may challenge integrity of proceeding but not relitigate merits)
- Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1992) (district courts must resolve all constitutional claims in § 2254 petitions)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (prohibition on race-based peremptory strikes)