Louis Perez v. William Stephens, Director, 745 F.3d 174

Perez was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death; the Texas CCA affirmed and denied habeas relief.
Perez exhausted state remedies and pursued federal habeas under AEDPA; district court denied habeas relief and COA.
Perez’s attorney, Khan, decided not to file a timely appeal without Perez’s knowledge or consent.
The district court later granted a Civil Rule 60(b)(6) motion to vacate and reenter judgment, allowing Perez to appeal within 30 days.
Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice challenged the 60(b)(6) relief, seeking dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
The majority vacated the 60(b)(6) order, reinstated the original March 27, 2012 judgment, and dismissed Perez’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court had power to use 60(b)(6) to reopen to permit a belated appeal	Perez	Director	No authority to circumvent appeal deadlines
Whether attorney abandonment constitutes extraordinary circumstances warranting 60(b)(6) relief	Perez	Director	Yes; abandonment qualifies as extraordinary circumstance
Effect of the 60(b)(6) relief on Perez’s habeas appeal and merits	Perez	Director	60(b)(6) relief invalidates the reentry; live judgment remains untimely

Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (U.S. 2012) (attorney abandonment constitutes extraordinary circumstances)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional; no equitable exceptions)
Dunn v. Cockrell, 302 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2002) (60(b) cannot circumvent 4(a)(5); sole purpose to extend time fails)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (attorney abandonment can justify equitable tolling under AEDPA)
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (equitable relief principles in habeas context)
Mackey v. Hoffman, 682 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2012) ( Maples applied to Rule 60(b)(6) in abandonment cases)