Steven Butler v. William Stephens, Director, 600 F. App'x 246

Steven Butler, a death‑row inmate, sought habeas relief alleging (among other claims) intellectual disability under Atkins, ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IATC) on competency/mitigation, Brady violations, involuntary confession, and Batson jury discrimination.
After the district court denied Butler’s initial habeas petition, Butler filed a Rule 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration based on post‑decision state proceedings and a state expert’s censure.
The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion and rejected several claims as procedurally defaulted before Martinez v. Ryan was decided.
The State urged the Fifth Circuit to treat Butler’s appellate brief as a request for a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Rule 60(b) denial.
The Fifth Circuit considered whether the Rule 60(b) filing was a successive habeas petition and concluded it was not, because it sought reconsideration based on events that arose after the original petition.
The court granted or denied COAs in part: COAs granted for the Rule 60(b) denial, Claim 1 (Atkins), Claim 2 (IATC — competence/mitigation), Claim 4 (Brady), and Claim 7 (Batson); COAs denied for Claim 3 (competency due‑process) and Claim 5 (IATC — confession voluntariness).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate brief should be treated as COA request from denial of Rule 60(b) motion	Butler sought relief from district court’s denial based on new state proceedings and expert censure	State urged treating brief as COA request	Court treated brief as COA request and GRANTED COA on Rule 60(b) denial; ruled Rule 60(b) was not a successive §2244(b) petition
IATC for failing to investigate/raise competency and mitigation (Claim 2)	Counsel failed to investigate Butler’s mental state and present mitigation	State asserted procedural default pre‑Martinez	COA GRANTED — reasonable jurists could debate Martinez‑based cause and prejudice; supplemental briefing ordered on "uncalled witness" rule
Brady violations during punishment phase (Claim 4)	Prosecution withheld exculpatory/impeachment evidence about other crimes used in punishment	State argued procedural default and insufficiency	COA GRANTED — reasonable jurists could debate default and merits of Brady claims
Batson challenge—trial court’s remedy for racially discriminatory juror excusal (Claim 7)	Trial court failed to remedy prosecution’s discriminatory strike	State defended trial court’s handling	COA GRANTED — parties given limited additional briefing opportunity

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment bars execution of intellectually disabled defendants)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (procedural‑default exception where ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel establishes cause)
Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (applies Martinez in certain state‑court contexts)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits race‑based peremptory challenges)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for issuing a COA)
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) (confession voluntariness requires official coercion; mental condition alone insufficient)
Pippin v. Dretke, 434 F.3d 782 (5th Cir. 2005) (COA issuance guidance in death‑penalty cases)
Leal Garcia v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes successive petitions from later‑ripened claims)