Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mitchell v. Rees

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

June 21, 2019

JOE CLARK MITCHELL Petitioner,
v.
JOHN REES, Respondent.

          Campbell Judge

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY United States Magistrate Judge

         Petitioner Joe Clark Mitchell, an African American, was convicted by an all-white jury in Maury County, Tennessee in 1988 and sentenced to life plus thirteen years in the state penitentiary. Mr. Mitchell filed his petition for habeas corpus relief in federal court in 1993. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the Petition in 1995 on the grounds the record established a violation of Batson v. Kentucky. Docket Nos. 85-86. Specifically, the court found Mitchell had established a prima facie case of race discrimination in the State's decision to strike African American juror Ms. Hattie Alderson. Though the state proffered a race neutral explanation, that explanation was “not worthy of belief.” Docket No. 85, p. 6-9. Since then, Petitioner's case has reached the Sixth Circuit five times. Although this court and the Sixth Circuit have conflicted on whether to grant habeas relief, in the more than twenty years since, no federal court has disputed the finding that Petitioner's conviction was racially-tainted.

         Now, pending before the court is Petitioner's Motion to Reopen Habeas Proceedings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and Memorandum in Support of Granting Habeas Corpus Relief on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim. Docket No. 217. Chief Judge Haynes (1) granted the Motion and (2) ordered Respondent to respond to the merits of Petitioner's Martinez claims. Docket No. 218. Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner's Motion to Reopen Habeas Proceedings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Docket No. 223. Petitioner filed a Reply to Respondent's Martinez Response. Docket No. 224. The petition was referred to the Magistrate Judge to dispose or recommend disposition of any pretrial motions under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and to conduct further proceedings, if necessary, under Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and the Local Rules of Court. The undersigned heard oral arguments from both sides on the merits of Petitioner's Martinez claims on July 13, 2018. Docket No. 240. The Motion is now ripe for review.

         For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that habeas corpus relief be GRANTED on the ground that Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

         I. Background

         This case has an extensive procedural history. In 1986, Joe Clark Mitchell was charged with offenses in Giles County, Tennessee. Mitchell v. State, No. M201400754CCAR3CD, 2015 WL 2400239, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 20, 2015). After a change of venue was granted, he was tried in Maury County, Tennessee, and an all-white jury convicted him of two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of armed robbery, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, one count of arson, one count of first-degree burglary, and two counts of aggravated rape. State v. Joe Clark Mitchell, No. 87-152-III, 1988 WL 32362, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Apr. 7, 1988). On direct appeal, The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals modified one of the aggravated rape convictions to rape. Id. Ultimately, the Petitioner received an effective sentence of life plus thirteen years. Mitchell v. Johnson, No. M201701478CCAR3HC, 2018 WL 3239272, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 3, 2018), appeal denied (Oct. 10, 2018).

         In his state post-conviction motion, Petitioner claimed, inter alia, that counsel failed to challenge the make-up of the jury pool. Following his motion,

the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and, despite Mitchell not having raised a violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), at trial, on direct appeal, or in his post-conviction motion nor having raised a claim that trial and\ appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise a Batson claim, the court permitted Mitchell to introduce evidence on the Batson claim. Without specifically addressing the Batson issue, the court ruled that the petition should be dismissed, holding that none of Mitchell's claims had merit. In affirming the trial court's denial of the post-conviction motion, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals expressly addressed the Batson issue stating “the lack of evidence on the Batson issue does not justify this Court upsetting the judgment entered in the original cases.” Mitchell v. State, No. 01-C- 019007CC00158, 1991 WL 1351, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 11, 1991).

Docket No. 216, p. 1-2.

         After exhausting his state court remedies, Petitioner filed his § 2254 petition in federal court in 1993. This court dismissed two claims that alleged Petitioner “had ineffective assistance of counsel vis-vis Batson and other issues, and that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. The sole claim that [this] court did not dismiss was the Batson claim itself (not the related ineffective-assistance claim) as stated in the federal habeas petition.” Mitchell v. Rees, 114 F.3d 571, 575 (6th Cir. 1997) (“Mitchell I”). This court referred Petitioner's Batson claim to a magistrate judge for an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of the claim. Docket Nos. 14, 64.

         At the evidentiary hearing, the District Attorney, Mike Bottoms testified that he struck Hattie Alderson, an African-American juror from the panel of prospective jurors, because she “appeared to be an elderly lady, ” who would not be able to follow the evidence in the case; he “probably” struck her because she was elderly. Docket No. 67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67, p. 14, 22, 24-25. Mr. Bottoms thought, “there was something about [Alderson's] appearance that bothered me.” Docket No. 67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67, p. 35-36. Mr. Bottoms, however, did not ask Ms. Alderson any specific questions nor did he strike white jurors who were older than Ms. Alderson. Docket No. 67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67, p. 38, 46. These older white men included Robert Hardison (eleven years older) and William Brown (six years older). Docket No. 67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67, p. 38, 46. In addition, jurors Ms. John Petty and Sarah Graff, were also older than Ms. Alderson. Docket No. 67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67, p. 40-41. Mr. Bottoms insisted that “I know I had a good reason” for striking Ms. Alderson. Docket No. 67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67');">67, p. 52.

         Based on the findings from the evidentiary hearing, then Magistrate Judge Haynes recommended that the petition be denied: although Petitioner made a prima facie showing of a Batson violation, Petitioner nonetheless “presented a neutral explanation for the prosecutor's striking of one black juror from the jury panel.” Docket No., 64, p. 2. Upon consideration of Petitioner's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, Judge Higgins made a de novo determination that the record established a Batson violation and granted the petition. Docket Entry Nos. 85-86. Judge Higgins, concluded (1) that Petitioner demonstrated a prima facie case of race discrimination; (2) that the State proffered a race-neutral explanation for striking Ms. Alderson; but (3) that Bottoms' explanation that Alderson was struck because of her age was “not worthy of belief.” Docket Entry No. 85, p. 6-9.

         Since the grant of habeas relief, Respondent has contested the decision to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and Petitioner's case has reached the Sixth Circuit five times. The Sixth Circuit, in its most recent opinion on the case (Docket No. 216 (“Mitchell V”)), summarizes the federal court proceedings below:

[Mitchell I]
In 1993, Mitchell filed a § 2254 petition in federal court. The district court referred Mitchell's Batson claim to a magistrate judge for an evidentiary hearing and ultimately granted habeas relief to Mitchell on that claim. The court denied Mitchell's claims that counsel was ineffective, including his claim that trial and appellate counsel failed to raise the Batson issue, and that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. The state appealed, and Mitchell cross-appealed the district court's ruling on his claims of ineffective assistance and insufficient evidence. [The Sixth Circuit] held that the district court erred in granting the petition because it was based on evidence adduced at a hearing that was erroneously ordered by the district court. Mitchell I, 114 F.3d at 579. In so holding, [the Sixth Circuit] explained that the district court erroneously ordered the hearing without requiring Mitchell to establish either (a) cause and prejudice for failure to develop the facts underlying his claim in the state court proceedings or (b) that not holding the hearing would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Id. at 577-79 (citing Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1992)). [The Sixth Circuit] further held that the district court did not err in denying relief on Mitchell's remaining claims, except his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the Batson issue. Id. at 579 n.13. [The Sixth Circuit] explained that if Mitchell could establish on remand that he was entitled to a hearing under the Keeney standard and that his Batson claim had merit, he might be able to prevail on the related ineffective-assistance claim. Id.
[Mitchell II]
On remand, Mitchell argued that his trial counsel's failure to raise the Batson issue excused his failure in the state post-conviction proceedings to put on evidence that a Batson violation had occurred. See Mitchell v. Rees, 36 Fed.Appx. 752, 753 (6th Cir. 2002) (“Mitchell II”). The district court found that the record established that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the Batson issue and that such ineffectiveness served as cause for failure to develop the record on post-conviction. The court then concluded that the evidence adduced at the earlier federal court evidentiary hearing proved that a Batson violation had occurred. Accordingly, the court granted habeas relief to Mitchell. On appeal, based on the holding in Mitchell I, [the Sixth Circuit] again reversed the district court's judgment, explaining as follows:
The district court's conclusion that the state court record demonstrates ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to the Batson issue necessarily depends on the record's demonstrating the existence of a meritorious Batson claim. The state appellate court that reviewed the dismissal of Mitchell's post-conviction petition found that “the lack of evidence on the Batson issue does not justify this Court in upsetting the judgment entered in the original cases, ” and in Mitchell I, we held that to be a finding of fact that was “fairly supported” by the state court record. Id. at 578-79. The district court was not free to overrule our conclusion.
Id. at 753-54 (footnote omitted).
[Mitchell III]
Subsequently, Mitchell filed a motion in the district court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), asserting that Mitchell I erroneously denied him a hearing. Mitchell v. Rees, 261 Fed.Appx. 825, 828 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Mitchell III”). The district court granted the motion, holding that our decision was in error based on our subsequent decision in Abdur'Rahman v. Bell, 226 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2000), granted an evidentiary hearing, adopted the findings from the previous evidentiary hearing, and granted the petition because of the Batson violation. Mitchell III, 261 Fed.Appx. at 828. On appeal, [the Sixth Circuit] reversed the district court's judgment, on the ground that Mitchell's Rule 60(b) motion was a Rule 60(b)(1) motion rather than a Rule 60(b)(6) motion and was, therefore, untimely because it was not brought within the one-year jurisdictional time limit. Id. at 830.
[Mitchell IV]
In another attempt to obtain relief from his conviction, Mitchell moved for permission to amend his prior motion for equitable relief in the form of an “independent action in equity” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(1). See Mitchell v. Rees, 651 F.3d 593, 594 (6th Cir. 2011) (“Mitchell VI”). The district court reluctantly denied the motion based on our ruling in Mitchell II. Id. On appeal, [the Sixth Circuit] affirmed the district court's judgment. Id. at 599.
[Mitchell V]
In July 2012, Mitchell filed a motion for relief from the judgment, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). In May 2013, Mitchell filed a renewed motion for relief from judgment, asking the court to “reopen proceedings on [his] ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim” in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S.Ct. 1911 (2013). According to Mitchell, under the Supreme Court's rulings in these cases, his post-conviction counsel's failure to raise a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the Batson issue provides cause for any default of his claim that trial counsel was ineffective. The district court granted an evidentiary hearing on the motion and ultimately determined that the motion constituted a second or successive habeas petition. Accordingly, the court transferred the motion to [the Sixth Circuit]. . . .
In the form motion for leave to file a second or successive petition, Mitchell assert[ed] that his Rule 60(b) motion was improperly transferred and ask[ed the Sixth Circuit] to remand the matter to the district court for consideration of his motion on the merits. He has also filed a motion to remand. . . .
[The Sixth Circuit] conclude[d] that, under Gonzalez v. Crosby, Mitchell's argument that Martinez v. Ryan and Trevino v. Thaler demonstrate “cause” to excuse procedural default of his Batson claim does not assert a “claim” and therefore should not be interpreted as a second or successive habeas petition. Accordingly, [the Sixth Circuit] grant[ed] Mitchell's motion to remand.

Docket No. 216, p. 1-4, 6.

         After the Sixth Circuit held that the petition was not a second or successive habeas petition, Chief Judge Haynes granted Petitioner's motion to reopen habeas proceedings under Rule 60(b)(6). Docket No. 218. This court then ordered Respondents to respond to the merits of Petitioner's Martinez claims. Docket No. 218. This Report and Recommendation now considers the merits of the Martinez claims to determine whether to grant habeas corpus relief.

         II. Law and Analysis A.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b): Relief from a Judgment or Order

         1.Generally

         As a preliminary matter, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 governs federal habeas relief for prisoners convicted in state court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment and request reopening of the case under a limited set of circumstances. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 529 (2005). The Supreme Court has held that Rule 60(b) has “an unquestionably valid role to play in habeas cases.” Id. at 534 (“The Rule is often used to relieve parties from the effect of a default judgment mistakenly entered against them . . . a function as legitimate in habeas cases as in run-of-the-mine civil cases. The Rule also preserves parties' opportunity to obtain vacatur of a judgment that is void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction . . . .”). Nonetheless, an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the judgment of a State court must “not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court unless the adjudication ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.