William Allen v. Bruce Westbrooks
700 F. App'x 406
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- William Allen, an African American, was convicted of murder in Davidson County, Tennessee in 1968 and sentenced to 99 years; he has long alleged systematic exclusion of African Americans from Davidson County grand juries that indicted him.
- The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals (1973) and a federal district court (pre-AEDPA) found no purposeful discrimination in grand-jury selection; this Court affirmed in 1974.
- Allen obtained resentencing in 2007 and received a new life sentence; he then filed a federal habeas petition challenging the resentencing and again asserting the grand-jury-discrimination claim.
- The district court denied the resentencing claim on the merits and treated the grand-jury claim as "second or successive," concluding that Allen needed this Court’s authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) to proceed.
- This Court initially denied a COA on the grand-jury issue but granted rehearing after this Court’s decision in King v. Morgan, concluding King controlled and that Allen’s petition was not second or successive.
- The panel held the district court erred in treating the grand-jury claim as second or successive and rejected the argument that pre-AEDPA abuse-of-the-writ doctrine barred the claim; the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allen’s habeas petition challenging a resentencing and renewing a grand-jury-discrimination claim is "second or successive" under § 2244(b) | Allen: King controls; a new judgment (resentencing) resets the second-or-successive bar so the petition is not second or successive | Warden: Prior merits adjudication of the grand-jury claim makes the new petition second or successive and thus requires circuit authorization | Court: Petition is not second or successive under King; district court erred requiring authorization |
| Whether pre-AEDPA abuse-of-the-writ doctrine can be used to dismiss the claim despite § 2244(b) analysis | Allen: AEDPA codified and altered abuse-of-the-writ rules; once petition is not second or successive, abuse-of-the-writ should not bar it | Warden: Even if not "second or successive," abuse-of-the-writ principles should bar relitigation of a claim previously decided on the merits | Court: Rejected the Warden’s argument; abuse-of-the-writ cannot be used to convert a non-successive petition into a successive one under AEDPA |
| Whether the district court may treat prior merits rulings as relevant on remand | Allen: Not directly argued here; seeks merits consideration in district court | Warden: Prior rulings should inform dismissal or summary resolution | Court: Left open — remanded and instructed parties to address remaining issues to the district court; court expressed no view on how district court should treat prior rulings |
| Appropriate next step | Allen: Proceed to merits review in district court without requiring authorization | Warden: Maintain that authorization or dismissal is appropriate | Held: Remand for further proceedings in district court; parties to brief remaining issues |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Morgan, 807 F.3d 154 (6th Cir. 2015) (a resentencing judgment resets the second-or-successive inquiry under § 2244(b))
- Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010) (AEDPA’s "second or successive" text controls; new judgment focus)
- Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965) (standards for proving purposeful racial exclusion from jury service)
- Jefferson v. Morgan, 962 F.2d 1185 (6th Cir. 1992) (granting habeas relief for grand-jury discrimination in Davidson County)
- In re Stansell, 828 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2016) (discussing AEDPA’s effect on petitions challenging new judgments and the potential lowering of barriers for some applicants)