Lisa Coleman v. William Stephens, Director
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17783
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Davontae Williams, a 9-year-old, died in 2004 of malnutrition and pneumonia after repeated abuse and restraint; Coleman was romantically involved with the child’s mother and participated in abusing/tethering the child.
- Coleman was indicted and convicted of capital murder under Texas law based on aiding/abetting kidnapping; jury sentenced her to death.
- State courts affirmed; Coleman’s federal habeas petition was denied on the merits in 2012, and this court denied a COA in 2013; the Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2014.
- Coleman filed a Rule 60(b) motion in federal district court on Sept. 11, 2014, attaching four new affidavits she said showed Davontae was not kidnapped.
- District court construed the filing as a successive habeas petition and transferred it to the Fifth Circuit; Coleman sought authorization and a stay of execution.
- The Fifth Circuit treated the filing as a second/successive §2254 application, concluded Coleman’s claims were barred, denied authorization, denied a COA, and refused a stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 60(b) motion is a successive habeas petition | Coleman: motion challenges integrity by presenting newly discovered affidavits that undermine the kidnapping element; thus a procedural defect permitting Rule 60(b) relief | State: the motion attacks the merits (new evidence of innocence / ineffective assistance) and so is a successive habeas petition | Court: Motion attacks merits (cites Gonzalez) — properly treated as successive habeas petition; affirmed |
| Whether the successive petition is permissible under §2244(b) | Coleman: affidavits not previously discoverable; would show counsel ineffective or actual innocence, satisfying §2244(b)(2) | State: claim was raised before (or is same claim with new facts) and fails §2244(b) requirements; no new constitutional rule; due diligence/incompatibility with Strickland | Court: Claim barred as previously raised; even if new, fails §2244(b)(2) because either evidence was discoverable (fails prong 1) or counsel could not have been ineffective if evidence was undiscoverable (fails prong 2) — denied |
| Whether Martinez/Trevino allow relief for state procedural default | Coleman: invokes Martinez/Trevino to excuse default of ineffective-assistance claim | State: claim was already presented and adjudicated on the merits in prior federal habeas; Martinez/Trevino inapplicable | Court: Martinez/Trevino do not apply because claim was addressed on the merits previously — denied |
| Whether a stay of execution should issue | Coleman: stay needed to litigate the affidavits/second petition | State: no likelihood of success; execution should proceed | Court: Coleman failed to show likelihood of success on merits; stay denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (distinguishing Rule 60(b) procedural challenges from successive habeas claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (excusing certain state procedural defaults for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (applying Martinez in certain Texas cases)
- Diaz v. Stephens, 731 F.3d 370 (stay-of-execution factors and standards)
- Balentine v. Thaler, 626 F.3d 842 (examples of procedural defects that may be Rule 60(b) grounds)