<< News Scan | Main | Single-Drug Method >>


Martinez v. Ryan and 60(b)(6)

| 0 Comments
In a published opinion in Adams v. Thaler, No. 12-70010, noted here, the Fifth Circuit held that the Supreme Court decision in Martinez v. Ryan, allowing ineffective assistance of state collateral counsel to be considered "cause" for default in certain limited circumstances, is not a sufficient basis to grant relief from a previous denial of a habeas petition under FRCP 60(b)(6).

See also prior posts on Martinez here and here.

Update:  The Supreme Court's denial of a stay in this matter is here.  No dissent is noted.  Denial of a stay and certiorari in the case from state court is here.

Notice there is no denial of certiorari in the federal habeas case.  Does that mean Adams hasn't filed a certiorari petition yet but only a stay request?  After Adams is executed, will there be a claim that the case is moot and the precedential value of the USCA5 opinion is wiped out by the Munsingwear rule?  Stay tuned.

Leave a comment