402 F. App'x 77
6th Cir.2010Background
- Stephen Michael West was convicted in Tennessee in 1987 of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated rape, and one count of larceny, and was sentenced to death.
- West filed a habeas petition in district court on February 20, 2001, asserting 22 grounds for relief, including ineffective assistance of counsel.
- District court dismissed the petition on September 30, 2004.
- This court affirmed the district court’s dismissal on December 18, 2008, addressing an ineffective assistance claim and conducting de novo review for prejudice.
- On October 15, 2010, West filed what he called a Rule 60(b) motion, claiming misapplication of AEDPA sections 2254(d) and 2254(e) and seeking consideration of additional evidence; the district court treated this as a second or successive petition and transferred it to this court.
- This court dismissed the second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) and also dismissed West’s appeal of the transfer order as non-appealable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether West’s Rule 60(b) motion is a second or successive habeas petition under AEDPA. | West argues the court erred in treating new evidence as a separate claim. | The petition presents the same general claim and fits §2244(b)(1) as second/successive. | Yes; it is a second or successive petition. |
| Whether the challenged claim is a new claim or the same claim already adjudicated. | West contends new evidence expands the claim and warrants reexamination. | New evidence that supports the same ineffective assistance argument is not a new claim. | The claim is not new; it is the same asserted basis for relief. |
| Whether Gonzalez v. Crosby requires treating the petition as a separate claim for relief. | West relies on Gonzalez to avoid preclusion. | Gonzalez governs 60(b) proceedings, but the petition is still a second/successive claim under §2244(b). | Gonzalez does not permit recharacterization to avoid AEDPA§2244(b) dismissal. |
| Whether AEDPA requires dismissal of the petition as second or successive. | West seeks relief under Rule 60(b) despite AEDPA constraints. | AEDPA bars second/successive petitions presenting claims already adjudicated. | The petition must be dismissed under §2244(b)(1). |
| Whether the transfer order is subject to appeal. | West seeks review of the transfer order. | Transfer orders of second or successive petitions are not appealable. | Transfer order not appealable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (Rule 60(b) and ‘extraordinary circumstances’ framework; effect on successive petitions)
- In re Bowling, 422 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2005) (new evidence to establish ineffective assistance does not create a new §2244(b) claim)
- Howard v. United States, 533 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2008) (appealability of transfer orders for second/successive petitions)
- West v. Bell, 550 F.3d 542 (6th Cir. 2008) (prior habeas decision addressing ineffective assistance and prejudice; de novo review possible)