Samuel Moreland v. Norm Robinson
813 F.3d 315
6th Cir.2016Background
- In 1986 Moreland was convicted by a three-judge panel of five murders and sentenced to death; he exhausted state remedies and filed a federal habeas petition in 2005.
- The district court denied habeas relief in 2005; Moreland appealed and while that appeal was pending (2012) he filed a Rule 60(b) motion and a motion to amend his habeas petition seeking to add/supplement claims about (a) jury-waiver validity, (b) defense counsel’s failure to use certain police/crime-scene reports (Brady/Strickland claims), and (c) failure to retain a blood‑analysis expert.
- The district court initially denied those motions for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to refiling after the mandate issued; after the Sixth Circuit affirmed and the Supreme Court denied certiorari, Moreland refiled revised motions adding an ineffective‑assistance claim that counsel drugged him and procured a jury‑waiver while he was impaired.
- The magistrate judge and then the district court concluded the motions were second or successive habeas petitions requiring prior authorization from the Sixth Circuit and denied relief; a certificate of appealability was granted and Moreland appealed that denial.
- The Sixth Circuit held the motions were indeed second or successive to the extent they sought to add new claims or to supplement previously litigated claims with new evidence, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate them, and that even if treated as requests for permission to file a successive petition, Moreland’s claims fail the statutory gatekeeping requirements or do not warrant Rule 60(b)(6) relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moreland) | Defendant's Argument (Warden/Robinson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 60(b) motion and motion to amend were "second or successive" habeas petitions | Motions were timely and not successive because some filings occurred while his initial appeal was pending and thus judgment was not final; Clark allows amendment before appellate process completes | Motions in substance raised new habeas claims or new evidence and thus are successive; lack of precertification deprives district court of jurisdiction | Motions are second or successive to the extent they add new claims or new evidence to litigated claims; district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate them |
| Whether the district court should have transferred the filings to the Sixth Circuit for authorization rather than deny on jurisdictional grounds | Movant implicitly requested adjudication; if treated as successive, transfer/processing by circuit is required | District court denied for lack of jurisdiction but could have transferred | Court: District court erred by not transferring; this court construed Moreland’s briefs as requesting authorization but denied on merits/gatekeeping grounds |
| Whether the new claims satisfy § 2244(b) gatekeeping (new rule or newly discoverable facts meeting clear-and-convincing standard) | New factual evidence (police reports, drugging allegation, blood‑expert evidence) justifies relief and Martinez/Trevino excuse procedural default | Claims do not rely on a new, retroactive constitutional rule; evidence was discoverable earlier (or claims were adjudicated on the merits); Martinez/Trevino are equitable and do not create the statutory gateway | Held: Claims fail § 2244(b) — not based on a new retroactive constitutional rule and do not show previously undiscoverable facts that would meet the clear‑and‑convincing injustice standard |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) or post‑judgment amendment is appropriate (extraordinary circumstances) | Intervening Martinez/Trevino decisions and newly discovered materials warrant reopening to avoid injustice | Rule 60(b)(6) is reserved for extraordinary circumstances; Martinez/Trevino are not, by themselves, such circumstances and many claims were either non‑defaulted or previously adjudicated | Held: Even assuming not successive, Moreland’s claims (blood expert, police reports) do not meet the extraordinary‑circumstances standard for Rule 60(b)(6) or post‑judgment amendment; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (treating Rule 60 motions that assert new claims as successive habeas applications)
- Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (failure to obtain precertification deprives district court of jurisdiction over successive petitions)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (procedural‑default equitable exception for ineffective‑assistance‑of‑trial‑counsel claims when initial-review collateral counsel was absent or ineffective)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (applying Martinez to certain Texas procedural framework)
- Clark v. United States, 764 F.3d 653 (6th Cir.) (motion to amend filed before time to appeal expires is not necessarily successive)
- Post v. Bradshaw, 422 F.3d 419 (6th Cir.) (Rule 60(b) motion filed after appeal is pending can constitute a successive petition)
- Moreland v. Bradshaw, 699 F.3d 908 (6th Cir.) (prior merits discussion of Moreland’s convictions and evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (Strickland prejudice standard and deference to state‑court decisions)