Terry Edwards v. Lorie Davis, Director
865 F.3d 197
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Terry D. Edwards, a Texas death-row inmate, filed a Rule 60(b) motion in federal district court on January 10, 2017 seeking to reopen the judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition and requested a stay of execution scheduled for January 26, 2017.
- Edwards’s federal habeas petition (filed Dec. 2010) challenged juror selection, various trial errors, and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; the district court denied relief and a COA; the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court denied further review.
- The district court concluded Edwards’s Rule 60(b) filing sought to advance new claims and thus was a successive habeas petition, transferred the matter to the Fifth Circuit, but granted a COA on a narrow question about alleged abandonment by federal habeas counsel.
- Edwards contends his federally appointed habeas counsel (Wardroup) accepted full-time work, created a conflict, and effectively abandoned him, which he says is a defect in the integrity of the habeas proceedings justifying Rule 60(b) relief.
- The Fifth Circuit (per curiam) held Edwards’s Rule 60(b) pleading is a successive habeas petition and, alternatively, that he failed to show extraordinary circumstances or timeliness required for Rule 60(b) relief; it denied the Rule 60(b) motion and stays of execution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Edwards’s Rule 60(b) motion is a second-or-successive habeas petition | Edwards says he raises a non-merits defect (abandonment/conflict by federal habeas counsel) eligible for Rule 60(b) relief, not new merits claims | State argues the motion advances new claims and is therefore a successive § 2254 petition subject to AEDPA limits | The court held the motion is successive (it seeks to add new claims) and therefore barred absent AEDPA authorization |
| Whether alleged abandonment/conflict by federal habeas counsel is a defect in the integrity of proceedings entitling Rule 60(b) relief | Edwards contends Wardroup’s acceptance of full‑time employment and alleged abandonment created an integrity defect warranting reopening | State contends Wardroup filed the federal petition timely, missed no deadlines, no actual conflict with state counsel is shown, and omissions don’t attack integrity | The court held the facts do not show abandonment or an integrity‑of‑proceedings defect; counsel’s conduct here does not meet Rule 60(b) extraordinary‑circumstances standard |
| Whether Edwards satisfied Rule 60(b)’s extraordinary‑circumstances and timeliness requirements | Edwards relies on Maples/Martinez/related precedents and claims counsel’s conduct was extraordinary and timely raised | State argues precedent limits Rule 60(b) relief for change‑in‑law or counsel omissions; Edwards delayed unreasonably | The court held Edwards failed to show extraordinary circumstances and that his motion was untimely under Rule 60(c) |
| Whether a stay of execution should issue pending appeal | Edwards argues a stay is needed if Rule 60(b) relief is available and merits further review | State stresses its interest in finality, equitable prejudice from delay, and that Edwards delayed filing | The court denied a stay: Edwards did not show likelihood of success and waited too long to seek relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (Rule 60(b) vs. successive habeas distinction; timeliness and extraordinary‑circumstances required)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (state-postconviction counsel ineffectiveness may excuse procedural default in limited circumstances)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (applying Martinez in Texas procedural context)
- Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (equitable tolling/abandonment where counsel’s conduct caused missed deadlines)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limits on evidence considered in federal habeas proceedings)
- Adams v. Thaler, 679 F.3d 312 (change in decisional law like Martinez is not per se extraordinary for Rule 60(b))
- Diaz v. Stephens, 731 F.3d 370 (Rule 60(b) extraordinary‑circumstances and stay factors)
- In re Coleman, 768 F.3d 367 (narrow view of procedural defects that attack integrity of habeas proceedings)
- In re Sepulvado, 707 F.3d 550 (no Sixth Amendment right to post‑conviction counsel; limits on counsel‑error claims)
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (State’s significant interest in enforcing criminal judgments; stay considerations)
- Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (equitable presumption against stays when delay could have allowed merits consideration)