858 F.3d 464
8th Cir.2017Background
- Kenneth D. Williams was convicted in 2000 of capital murder and sentenced to death; state and initial federal post‑conviction proceedings denied relief and requests for investigatory funds.
- Williams’s execution was scheduled for April 27, 2017; new counsel (Federal Defenders) obtained juror declarations and new expert evaluations days before the execution.
- Alleged juror misconduct/bias: juror employed at local prison discussed conditions favoring life sentences, jury foreman led prayer and consulted a Bible, sheriff allegedly told jurors Williams had threatened them, and some jurors knew the victim.
- Alleged intellectual disability: three psychologists (after re‑review/testing) concluded Williams qualifies as intellectually disabled; prior experts had not diagnosed him as such or had not completed scoring.
- Procedural posture: Williams filed (1) a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to reopen federal habeas based on juror misconduct; (2) an amended §2254 habeas asserting Atkins (intellectual disability) relief; and (3) a protective application seeking permission to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b). The district court transferred the matters to the Eighth Circuit.
- The Eighth Circuit consolidated the matters and denied authorization to file second/successive petitions, denied the certificate of appealability as moot, and denied stays of execution.
Issues
| Issue | Williams’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 60(b) motion raising juror misconduct is a true Rule 60(b) procedural attack or a second/successive habeas claim | The motion attacked a defect in the integrity of prior federal habeas proceedings (denial of investigatory funds) and thus is a procedural attack not subject to §2244(b) | The motion asserts substantive claims of juror bias/new ineffective assistance and therefore is a second/successive habeas petition subject to §2244(b) | The court held the motion is a second/successive habeas application and denied authorization to proceed under §2244(b) |
| Whether Williams showed extraordinary circumstances to justify Rule 60(b)(6) relief reopening the habeas proceeding | Late discovery of juror evidence after counsel change and lack of resources earlier excuse delay; evidence warrants reopening | Williams was not diligent; jurors could have been interviewed earlier; late timing does not meet Rule 60(b)(6) extraordinary‑circumstances standard | Court held Williams failed to show extraordinary circumstances and would not reopen the case under Rule 60(b)(6) |
| Whether the Atkins claim (intellectual disability) raised after issuance of execution warrant is exempt from AEDPA’s second/successive restrictions (§2244(b)) because it ripened only when execution became imminent | Atkins claim concerns present ineligibility to be executed and thus ripens at or near execution; §2244(b) should not bar review (or alternatively relief available under §2241) | Eighth Circuit precedent treats Atkins as determining culpability at time of offense (not a Ford‑type competency claim) and thus §2244(b) applies; §2254 is the exclusive vehicle; §2241 is unavailable | Court held the Atkins claim is a second/successive §2254 application subject to §2244(b) and denied authorization and the protective application to file; §2241 alternative rejected |
| Whether Moore v. Texas (2017) or other recent Supreme Court decisions provide a new, retroactive rule to satisfy §2244(b)(2)(A) | Moore announced a constitutional limit on states’ use of outdated medical standards for intellectual disability and thus supplies a new retroactive rule permitting successive review | Moore is not shown to be retroactive here and the claim does not rely on state use of outdated medical guides; circuit precedent forecloses retroactivity/availability | Court declined to find Moore a retroactive new rule for §2244(b)(2)(A) purposes and denied relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (death penalty unconstitutional for intellectually disabled offenders)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (distinction between true Rule 60(b) procedural challenges and successive habeas claims)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) (competency to be executed and ripeness of Ford‑type claims)
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) (execution of insane persons prohibited)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) (states cannot rely on outdated medical standards in Atkins determinations)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby appears above and is controlling on Rule 60(b) analysis; see also Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996) (AEDPA limits on successive petitions do not suspend the writ)
- Davis v. Kelley, 854 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 2017) (Eighth Circuit treated Atkins claims as governed by §2244(b) and distinguished from Ford‑type claims)
- Williams v. Norris, 612 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 2010) (prior decision denying investigatory funds and rejecting speculative juror investigation claims)