935 F.3d 284
5th Cir.2019Background
- Dexter Johnson was convicted and sentenced to death for a 2007 murder; his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- State habeas counsel Patrick McCann represented Johnson in state and initial federal habeas proceedings; McCann did not raise an Atkins or certain ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel (IATC) claims and later faced conflict concerns.
- After Martinez and Trevino, conflict-free counsel was appointed; Johnson sought Rule 60(b) relief alleging McCann’s deficient/conflicted representation undermined the integrity of the federal habeas proceeding.
- The district court denied Johnson’s Rule 60(b) motion as lacking extraordinary circumstances and denied relief; Johnson sought a COA to appeal that denial and separately sought authorization to file a successive §2254 Atkins claim based on DSM-5 diagnostic changes.
- The Fifth Circuit denied a COA on the Rule 60(b) denial, concluding Johnson failed to present meritorious defaulted claims, but granted authorization to file a successive Atkins petition under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b) and stayed execution pending further district-court proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reasonable jurists could debate denial of COA for Rule 60(b) motion | Johnson: McCann’s conflicts and deficient §3599-level representation are extraordinary; need not fully plead merits of defaulted IATC claims at Rule 60(b) stage | State: Conflicted counsel alone is insufficient; movant must show some meritorious claim and extraordinary circumstances | Denied COA — reasonable jurists would not debate abuse of discretion; Johnson failed to present meritorious defaulted claims or other factors showing extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether Rule 60(b) motion properly alleged a defect in the integrity of habeas proceedings sufficient to reopen judgment | Johnson: Motion attacked integrity via counsel’s ethical and performance failures; reopening does not require full merits pleading | State: Such attacks ordinarily do not go to integrity absent some meritorious claim; movant must show a good claim or defense | Court: District court correctly required some meritorious underlying claim; conflicted/deficient counsel alone insufficient without presented meritorious defaulted claims |
| Whether Johnson made a prima facie showing to authorize a successive §2254 Atkins claim under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(2)(A) and timeliness/equitable tolling | Johnson: DSM-5 changed diagnostic framework making an Atkins claim newly available; recent testing and expert evaluation support intellectual disability; equitable tolling due to conflicted counsel | State: Atkins was not newly available; Cathey is distinguishable or undermined by Supreme Court decisions; statute-of-limitations bars petition | Granted authorization and stayed execution — applying In re Cathey, DSM-5 and new testing created a previously unavailable Atkins prima facie showing; timeliness/equitable-tolling questions remanded for district-court factfinding |
Key Cases Cited
- Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017) (Rule 60(b) extraordinary-circumstances and requirement of a meritorious claim for reopening)
- Gonzales v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (limits on Rule 60(b) attacks that are effectively successive habeas petitions)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (excusing procedural default for IATC when state habeas counsel was ineffective)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (extension of Martinez in certain Texas cases)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (death penalty inapplicable to intellectually disabled defendants)
- In re Cathey, 857 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2017) (prima facie availability of Atkins claim where later medical/diagnostic developments or evidence create a possible meritorious claim)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) (use of current medical standards in assessing intellectual disability under Atkins)
- Shoop v. Hill, 139 S. Ct. 504 (2019) (relitigation and §2254(d)(1) considerations; limited Shoop’s effect on Cathey)
- Raby v. Davis, 907 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 2018) (conflicted habeas counsel insufficient by itself to obtain Rule 60(b) relief)