William Webb v. Lorie Davis, Director
940 F.3d 892
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background:
- Webb pled guilty in Texas (injury to a child) and received a 20-year sentence.
- Before pleading, Webb filed written pretrial motions (speedy-trial demand, request for exculpatory evidence, and motion for substitute counsel); the state court certified he had preserved those issues for appeal.
- Webb filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition raising those preserved pretrial claims and ineffective-assistance claims; the district court dismissed the petition as waived by his guilty plea.
- This court initially denied a COA; after mandate, Webb filed a pro se Rule 60(b) motion arguing the district court erred in finding waiver; the district court denied/dismissed parts of that motion.
- A COA was later granted limited to whether the district court abused its discretion in denying 60(b) relief as to the three preserved pretrial claims; on appeal the Fifth Circuit addressed jurisdiction, the nature of Webb’s 60(b) motion, but ultimately affirmed because Webb waived the COA issue on appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider Webb’s Rule 60(b) motion under the mandate rule | Webb sought relief from the district court’s procedural ruling; the district court could revisit matters not expressly decided on appeal | Respondent argued the mandate rule barred relitigation because this court previously denied COA | Mandate rule not jurisdictional here; prior COA denial did not expressly decide the waiver issue, so district court could consider 60(b) motion |
| Whether the Rule 60(b) motion was an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 petition | Webb: his 60(b) motion attacked a procedural defect (waiver determination), not the merits or new claims | Respondent: the motion was a disguised successive habeas application requiring authorization | Court held the motion challenged a procedural ruling (waiver) and was properly treated as Rule 60(b), not a successive § 2254 filing |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying relief under Rule 60(b)(1) (mistake) or (6) | Webb argued the district court mistakenly concluded his guilty plea waived the preserved claims (seeking relief under 60(b)(1) and (6)) | Respondent argued district court acted within discretion and motion was successive insofar as it re-litigated merits | Court limited review to Rule 60(b)(1); found no abuse of discretion question reached on merits because Webb failed to brief the COA issue on appeal (procedural waiver) |
| Whether Webb preserved appellate review of the COA issue | Webb raised other arguments on appeal (presumption of correctness, ineffective assistance) | Respondent emphasized Webb failed to brief the COA issue granted | Court held Webb waived the COA issue by not briefing it; affirmed district court judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (jurisdiction is a threshold requirement)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (distinguishing Rule 60(b) procedural attacks from successive habeas petitions)
- Gibson v. Klevenhagen, 777 F.2d 1056 (Texas defendants who plead guilty may appeal issues preserved by pretrial written motion)
- United States v. Pineiro, 470 F.3d 200 (mandate rule is discretionary; exceptions exist)
- United States v. Teel, 691 F.3d 578 (mandate rule is not jurisdictional)
- Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 699 F.2d 693 (Rule 60(b)(1) judicial-error must be a fundamental misconception)
- Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396 (standard of review for Rule 60(b) relief)
- Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632 (60(b)(6) cannot duplicate other subsections)
- Crutsinger v. Davis, 929 F.3d 259 (examples of procedural rulings properly challenged via Rule 60(b))