Leroy White v. Charlie Jones
408 F. App'x 293
11th Cir.2011Background
- White was sentenced to death in 1989 for the murder of his wife and faces execution in 2011.
- He moved for a stay of execution following district court denial of his Rule 60(b) motion and a related Rule 59(e) motion.
- The district court denied the 59(e) motion and a stay; appellate review was sought in the Eleventh Circuit.
- The court emphasized equitable considerations around stays, including a significant probability of success on the underlying habeas claim and diligence.
- Rule 60(b) motions are being treated as a potential vehicle to restart the appellate clock, which the court analyzes.
- There is a dissent arguing that abandonment by counsel constitutes extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether movant shows significant probability of success on the merits. | White: significant likelihood on underlying habeas merits. | White: no significant likelihood; no entitlement to relief. | No significant likelihood shown. |
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief can restart the appeal period. | White: Rule 60(b) should restart clock. | Rule 60(b) not a substitute for timely appeal; limited use. | Rule 60(b) cannot restart the appeal period in this context. |
| Whether abandonment by counsel constitutes extraordinary circumstances justifying relief. | White: former counsel abandoned him without notice. | Counsel conduct insufficiently egregious to warrant relief. | Not persuasive in the majority view; however, dissent argues it could be extraordinary. |
| Whether movant acted with due diligence in pursuing post-conviction relief. | White acted diligently; delay attributable to counsel. | Delay and lack of diligence weigh against relief. | Lack of due diligence weighs against stay relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Allen, 496 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir.2007) (equitable stay standards for capital cases partially cited)
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (U.S. 2006) (equitable stay principles in capital cases; timing and merits considerations)
- Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1998) (strong State interest in enforcing judgments; post-trial proceedings impact)
- Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir.2007) (discusses standards for stays and merits reliance)
- Jackson v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir.2006) (Rule 60(b) relief not a substitute for timely appeal; timing constraints)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (jurisdictional limits affecting out-of-time appeals)