Warren Henness v. Margaret Bagley, 766 F.3d 550

Henness, an Ohio death-sentenced inmate, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254 challenging his convictions and death sentence.
He pursued a March 2013 Rule 60(b)(6) motion seeking relief from a prior dismissal of ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims, arguing intervening law creates cause for procedural default.
The district court dismissed his petition as meritless and later denied his Rule 60(b)(6) motion; the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief.
Henness had previously raised multiple ineffective-assistance claims in state post-conviction proceedings, which were procedurally defaulted in federal habeas review.
Intervening Supreme Court decisions Martinez v. Ryan and Trevino v. Thaler were invoked by Henness to claim cause to excuse defaults, but the court ruled these changes do not warrant Rule 60(b)(6) relief in this Ohio context.
The court analyzed whether trial-counsel shortcomings were substantial and prejudicial under Strickland and whether extraordinary circumstances justified relief from judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Martinez/Trevino provide cause to excuse procedural defaults for habeas review.	Henness argues intervening law creates cause to excuse defaults.	Bagley contends changes are not extraordinary and do not override finality.	No; Rule 60(b)(6) relief denied on this basis.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by applying Rule 60(b)(6) given Trevino/Martinez circumstances.	Henness asserts merits-based cause from Martinez/Trevino.	Court weighs factors; change insufficient for relief.	Abuse of discretion not shown; relief denied.
Whether counsel’s pretrial/in-trial performance was deficient and prejudicial under Strickland.	Counsel failed to adequately investigate, harming defense.	Performance not deficient or prejudice not proven.	Petitioner fails to show prejudice; no relief.
Whether new evidence about Tabatha Henness and crime-scene blood evidence would have changed outcome.	Additional investigative findings would undermine credibility and evidence.	New evidence would not likely change verdict.	Not substantially likely to alter outcome; no relief.
Whether breakdown in counsel relationship and rejection of plea offer supports relief.	Better investigation would have altered plea dynamics.	No showing that further investigation would have led to different plea decision.	Not dispositive of outcome; relief denied.

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (ineffective-assistance in state post-conviction not constitutionally required)
Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (narrow exception for ineffective assistance in initial state collateral review)
Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013) (extends Martinez to certain Ohio-like contexts; not sufficient here)
McGuire v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst., 738 F.3d 741 (6th Cir. 2013) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief extraordinary; change in decisional law not per se extraordinary)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (unreasonable strategic choices in investigation endure Strickland prejudice test)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standard)
Thompson v. Bell, 580 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2009) (case on balancing factors in Rule 60(b)(6) analyses)
Williams v. Taylor, 120 S. Ct. 1495 (2000) (discusses prejudice and Strickland)