629 F. App'x 613
5th Cir.2015Background
- Len Davis, convicted of federal civil-rights murder and sentenced to death, sought to proceed pro se in post-conviction proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 after prior appeals and resentencing litigation in which he successfully invoked self-representation at sentencing.
- The district court held Faretta hearings, found Davis competent, and appointed standby counsel while permitting Davis to proceed pro se initially.
- Standby counsel filed a § 2255 petition raising 29 claims; Davis agreed to 19 (challenging convictions) but refused 10 claims (challenging competency and death sentence).
- Standby counsel moved to vacate Davis’s Faretta relief; the district court ruled Davis had forfeited any statutory § 1654 right to self-representation and vacated part of its prior Faretta grant. The court allowed Davis to proceed pro se on the 19 agreed claims but appointed standby counsel to litigate the 10 contested claims.
- Davis appealed interlocutorily and petitioned for mandamus. The Fifth Circuit accepted appellate jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine and consolidated the appeal with the mandamus petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis retained a statutory right under 28 U.S.C. § 1654 to represent himself in § 2255 proceedings | Davis contended he sufficiently asserted and preserved his statutory right and, being found competent, cannot be forced to have counsel litigate claims he refuses to raise | Government and district court argued Davis waived any statutory claim by relying on Faretta rather than expressly invoking § 1654; also suggested court rules may limit self-representation | Court held Davis did not waive his § 1654 right; district court erred in appointing counsel over Davis’s objection and must allow him to litigate all claims he chooses to raise pro se |
| Whether denial of pro se representation is immediately appealable | Davis asserted denial of self-representation is collateral and immediately appealable | Government questioned finality jurisdiction but offered no contrary position on appealability | Court found collateral-order doctrine satisfied and exercised jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal |
| Whether the Fifth Circuit should order reassignment of the case to a different district judge on remand | Davis sought neutral adjudication implicitly by supporting reassignment arguments advanced by government | Government argued reassignment warranted due to perceived partiality | Court declined reassignment, finding no objective basis to question the judge’s impartiality and expecting compliance with mandate |
| Whether appellate counsel should be appointed and whether in forma pauperis status should be granted anew | Davis requested appointed appellate counsel and IFP status | Government and record showed significant prior counsel and district court had already granted IFP; counsel appointment discretionary | Court denied appointment of appellate counsel (no abuse of discretion) and dismissed IFP motion as unnecessary (district court had already granted IFP) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 285 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (prior Fifth Circuit mandamus ordering against appointment of independent counsel when defendant invoked self-representation at sentencing)
- United States v. Davis, 609 F.3d 663 (5th Cir. 2010) (affirming convictions and sentence following resentencing)
- Prewitt v. City of Greenville, Miss., 161 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 1998) (denial of right to proceed pro se falls within collateral-order doctrine)
- Scott v. Wainwright, 617 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1980) (recognizing statutory right to self-representation in habeas contexts)
- Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659 (5th Cir. 1987) (jurisdictional inquiry guidance for interlocutory appeals)
- In re DaimlerChrysler Corp., 294 F.3d 697 (5th Cir. 2002) (standards for reassignment to another district judge)
- Test Masters Educ. Serv., Inc. v. Robin Singh Educ. Serv., Inc., 799 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2015) (judicial rulings alone rarely show bias)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in post-conviction proceedings)