Errol Moses v. Carlton Joyner

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:03-cv-00910-TDS-LPA. [999769847]. [15-2]

Appeal: 15-2

Doc: 42

Filed: 03/08/2016

Pg: 1 of 15

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2

ERROL DUKE MOSES,
Petitioner − Appellant,
v.
CARLTON JOYNER, Warden, Central Prison,
Respondent − Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:03-cv-00910-TDS-LPA)

Argued:

January 26, 2016

Decided:

March 8, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit
Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion.
Judge Wilkinson wrote the
opinion, in which Chief Judge Traxler and Judge Niemeyer joined.

ARGUED: Shelagh Rebecca Kenney, CENTER FOR DEATH PENALTY
LITIGATION, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Peter Andrew
Regulski, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Kenneth J. Rose, CENTER FOR
DEATH PENALTY LITIGATION, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General of North Carolina, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Appeal: 15-2

Doc: 42

Filed: 03/08/2016

Pg: 2 of 15

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant
denial

of

Errol

his

Moses

motion

for

challenges
relief

from

the

district

judgment

court’s

pursuant

to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). He argues that the
court

abused

its

discretion

in

finding

that

the

motion

was

untimely under Rule 60(c). He further contends that the trial
court erred in concluding that the change in post-conviction
procedural default rules fashioned by Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.
Ct. 1309 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013),
did

not

needed

to

constitute
reopen

the

his

kind

case.

of
For

“extraordinary
the

reasons

circumstance”

that

follow,

we

affirm.
I.
On November 14, 1997, a North Carolina jury convicted Moses
of two counts of first-degree murder for the killings of Ricky
Griffin and Jacinto Dunkley. State v. Moses, 350 N.C. 741, 74550, 517 S.E.2d 853, 857-60 (1999). In the early morning hours of
November 25, 1995, Moses had visited Griffin’s house to follow
up on a drug sale and fired three shots at Griffin’s head, two
“from a range of approximately two feet or less.” Id. at 746.
Two months later, on January 27, 1996, Moses drove to Dunkley’s
home in a stolen vehicle and threatened Dunkley with a handgun,
demanding to know where Dunkley hid his money. Id. at 747-50.
When Dunkley failed to respond, Moses shot him once in the chest
2

Appeal: 15-2

Doc: 42

Filed: 03/08/2016

Pg: 3 of 15

and once in the head. Id. Several days after the second murder,
while incarcerated on other charges, Moses contacted two people
in

an

attempt

to

conceal

his

murder

weapon,

which

was

the

jury

nonetheless later seized by police. Id.
Following

Moses’

capital

sentencing

hearing,

recommended, and the trial court imposed, two death sentences.
The

state

United

supreme

States

court

Supreme

affirmed

Court

Moses’

denied

his

conviction,
petition

for

and

the

writ

of

certiorari. See State v. Moses, 350 N.C. 741, 517 S.E.2d 853
(1999),

cert.

“Motion

for

denied,

528

Appropriate

U.S.

Relief”

1124

(2000).

(MAR)

in

Moses

the

trial

filed

a

court,

alleging that he had been deprived of his Sixth Amendment right
to

effective

assistance

of

trial

and

appellate

counsel.

The

North Carolina courts rejected his claims. State v. Moses, 356
N.C. 442, 573 S.E.2d 160 (2002).
The

procedural

trail

then

becomes

lengthy

indeed.

On

November 3, 2003, Moses filed a federal habeas petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina. He argued that his counsel provided
constitutionally deficient representation during the guilt and
penalty phases of trial. J.A. 370-411. Moses also asserted that
the

inadequate

performance

of

his

post-conviction

counsel

excused any procedural default of his ineffective-assistance-oftrial-counsel claims. Id.
3

Appeal: 15-2

Doc: 42

Filed: 03/08/2016

Pg: 4 of 15

The case was assigned to a magistrate judge who recommended
that Moses’ petition be denied. J.A. 565-600. Specifically, the
recommendation

noted

broaden,”

591,

J.A.

that
the

Moses

“attempt[ed]

allegations

to
in

contained

drastically
his

MAR

by

“mov[ing] well beyond a claim of failure to present evidence to
one of a failure to investigate.” J.A. 593. The magistrate judge
concluded that the newly-raised matters were both unexhausted
and

procedurally

barred.

Hoping

to

remedy

those

infirmities

before the district court issued its order, Moses filed a second
MAR

in

the

rejected.

state

J.A.

trial

court.

622-23.

The

His

motion

district

was

court

ultimately

adopted

the

magistrate’s recommendation on October 18, 2005, and this court
affirmed. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. Moses v. Branker,
No.

06-8,

2007

WL

3083548

(4th

Cir.

Oct.

23,

2007),

cert.

denied, 554 U.S. 924 (2008).
Moses filed yet a third MAR with the state trial court on
October

1,

2009.

He

argued

that

the

state

violated

the

Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it failed to
disclose
against

an

immunity

Moses

at

agreement

trial.

Moses

with
also

a

witness

claimed

who

that

testified
the

state

knowingly refused to correct false testimony. After conducting
an evidentiary hearing, the court once again denied his motion.
Moses unsuccessfully petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court
for review. State v. Moses, 365 N.C. 93, 706 S.E.2d 246 (2011).
4

Appeal: 15-2

Doc: 42

On

Filed: 03/08/2016

September

23,

Pg: 5 of 15

2011,

Moses

filed

a

motion

under

Rule 60(b) for relief from the district court’s October 2005
order dismissing his federal habeas petition. He raised the same
allegations

presented

in

his

third

MAR.

The

district

court

determined that the motion should be treated as a successive
habeas petition, and accordingly transferred the matter to this
court for pre-filing authorization. We denied authorization for
the successive habeas litigation. In re Moses, No. 13–1 (4th
Cir. Feb. 7, 2013).
Meanwhile, on March 20, 2012, the Supreme Court held in
Martinez that a procedural default under state law will not bar
a federal habeas court from hearing an ineffective-assistanceof-trial-counsel
ineffectively

(IATC)

failed

claim

to

raise

if

the

a

IATC

prisoner’s
claim

in

attorney

the

initial

state collateral proceedings. See 132 S. Ct. at 1315-20. About
fourteen months later, the Court decided Trevino, which extended
the

Martinez

exception

to

the

customary

rules

of

procedural

default to cases in which state procedure did not require a
petitioner

to

raise

an

ineffectiveness

claim

initially

on

collateral review but nonetheless made it “highly unlikely” that
a

criminal

defendant

would

have

a

meaningful

opportunity

to

raise that claim on direct appeal. See 133 S. Ct. at 1921.
Moses
pursuant

filed
to

a

Rule

second
60(b)

motion
in
5

for
the

relief

from

district

judgment

court

on

Appeal: 15-2

Doc: 42

Filed: 03/08/2016

Pg: 6 of 15

August 19, 2014 -- nearly fifteen months after the Supreme Court
handed

down

Trevino.

Moses

argued

below,

and

maintains

on

appeal, that the change in decisional law worked by Martinez and
Trevino

represents

the

kind

of

“extraordinary

circumstance”

justifying relief from judgment under 60(b)(6). J.A. 624-32. He
asserts

that

counsel’s

because

failure

the

to

“allegations

adequately

regarding

investigate

[his]
and

trial

present

mitigating evidence . . . fall within the Martinez exception,”
his

ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel

procedurally

forfeited,

and

the

claims

district

are

court’s

not

decision

dismissing his federal habeas petition should be vacated. Id.
at 629. The court below held that Moses’ motion was not only
untimely

under

decisional
60(b)(6)

Rule

law,

60(c),

without

relief.

Id.

but

more,

at

that

is

706-21.

an

We

a

change

in

insufficient

granted

a

habeas

basis

certificate

for
of

appealability, and this appeal ensued.
II.
We first address whether Moses’ Rule 60(b)(6) motion for
relief

from

judgment

on

the

basis

of

Martinez

and

Trevino

satisfies the timeliness requirement under Rule 60(c). We think
the district court acted well within its discretion in finding
the motion untimely. J.A. 722-25. Rule 60(c)(1) requires that
60(b) motions “be made within a reasonable time,” Fed. R. Civ.
P.

60(c)(1),

and

the

movant

bears
6

the

burden

of

showing

Appeal: 15-2

Doc: 42

Filed: 03/08/2016

Pg: 7 of 15

timeliness. Werner v. Carbo, 731 F.2d 204, 206-07 & n.1 (4th
Cir. 1984). Moses’ 60(b) motion is predicated on a change in
habeas procedural law established in Martinez, 132 S. Ct. 1309,
and later clarified in Trevino, 133 S. Ct. 1911. The Supreme
Court decided Martinez on March 20, 2012, and Trevino on May 28,
2013.
Nonetheless, appellant waited until August 19, 2014 to file
the 60(b) motion at issue here. J.A. 624-34. This was nearly
two-and-a-half
Trevino.

years

Such

a

after
delay

Martinez
would

and

be

fifteen

months

inordinate

under

after
any

circumstances. This delay is especially inexplicable in view of
the

fact

that

Moses

had

presented

his

claim

asserting

ineffective assistance of trial counsel in federal court and was
procedurally barred for having failed to raise it in state postconviction proceedings. In other words, Moses was on high alert
as to the relevance of Martinez to his case given that he had
earlier pressed in federal habeas proceedings the exact argument
eventually adopted in Martinez: that ineffectiveness of postconviction

counsel

constitutes

cause

for

procedural

default.

Waiting well over two years after Martinez and a year after
Trevino to bring that argument before the district court in his
60(b)

motion

understandably

struck

delayed under Rule 60(c).

7

that

court

as

excessively

Appeal: 15-2

Doc: 42

Filed: 03/08/2016

Pg: 8 of 15

What is more, Moses had filed an earlier 60(b) motion on
September 23, 2011, which was pending when Martinez came down.
Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 58. That 60(b) motion raised two issues,
that the state allowed false testimony and concealed an alleged
immunity agreement with a government witness, neither of which
related to procedural default of his ineffectiveness claim. Id.
Yet Moses never tried to amend that pending motion to allege his
trial counsel’s ineffective assistance in light of the change in
procedural default rules.
We can hardly fault the district court for an abuse of
discretion

in

ruling

that

Moses’

delay

was

well

beyond

the

bounds of reasonableness set forth in Rule 60(c). Courts have
ruled Martinez-based 60(b) motions untimely in cases involving
shorter delays than that present here. E.g., Taylor v. Wetzel,
No. 4:CV-04-553, 2014 WL 5242076, at *8 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 15, 2014)
(filing one year and a day after Martinez untimely); Henness v.
Bagley, No. 2:01-cv-043, 2013 WL 4017643, at *11 (S.D. Ohio Aug.
6, 2013) (filing one year after Martinez untimely). In fact,
Moses refers us to no case where a delay as long as his was
deemed timely under Rule 60(c).
Appellant claims, however, that the starting point for the
timeliness inquiry should not be Martinez v. Ryan, but rather
Fowler v. Joyner, a Fourth Circuit case decided over two years
later.

753

F.3d

446

(4th

Cir.
8

2014).

In

Fowler,

this

court

Appeal: 15-2

Doc: 42

Filed: 03/08/2016

Pg: 9 of 15

addressed how North Carolina’s post-conviction procedural scheme
fit within the new Martinez-Trevino framework. Id. at 462-63.
But Moses was in no way required to await the Fowler decision
before filing a new 60(b) motion or amending his existing 60(b)
motion to assert his Martinez-based claim. The barrier facing
appellant was always the procedural default of his ineffectiveassistance-of-counsel

claim,

a

barrier

that

Martinez

specifically lifted. 132 S. Ct. at 1320. The operative date for
the timeliness inquiry is therefore Martinez and not Fowler.
To conclude that the operative date was anything other than
Martinez

would

indefinitely,

permit

those

shifting

the

filing
starting

60(b)

motions

point

for

to

wait

determining

timeliness forward with every case that in some way related to
an

earlier

on-point

Supreme

Court

decision.

Fowler

itself

frowned on any such tactic. In fact, Fowler discussed a Fourth
Circuit

decision

that

further

clarified

Martinez,

Juniper

v.

Davis. Fowler, 753 F.3d at 461-62 (citing 737 F.3d 288 (4th Cir.
2013)). Our court treated Martinez, and not the inevitable later
elaborative decision by a lower court, as the operative change
in habeas law. See id. at 460-62. That approach is consistent
with

the

particular

emphasis

that

AEDPA

and

other

statutes

governing relief from final judgments place on changes in law by
the

Supreme

(referring

Court.
to

“a

See,

e.g.,

new

rule

28
of

9

U.S.C.

§

2254(e)(2)(A)(i)

constitutional

law,

made

Appeal: 15-2

Doc: 42

Filed: 03/08/2016

retroactive

to

cases

on

Pg: 10 of 15

collateral

review

by

the

Supreme

Court”); 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2) (same).
In

reaching

our

conclusion

on

timeliness,

we

remain

sensitive to the fact that standards such as “reasonable time,”
“excusable

neglect,”

and

“good

cause

shown”

reflect

the

considerable latitude of judgment our system reposes in trial
courts. Were we to reverse the district court’s ruling here as
an abuse of discretion and accept as timely a motion filed twoand-a-half years after the appellant knew or should have known
the basis for his 60(b) claim, the “reasonable time” limitation
in Rule 60(c)(1) would quickly lose all meaning. Movants would
be free to re-litigate matters years after their judgments had
become final and years after every subsequent change in law that
even

arguably

brought

relief.

We

decline

to

so

erode

the

“principle of finality . . . essential to the operation of our
criminal justice system” and the respect we owe to state court
judgments. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 309 (1989).
III.
A.
Appellant’s problem with untimeliness is but the first of
many hurdles. The question remains whether he met the standard
for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Rule 60(b) establishes grounds
for

relief

from

circumstances

a

final

including

judgment

fraud,

“under

mistake,

10

a

and

limited
newly

set

of

discovered

Appeal: 15-2

Doc: 42

Filed: 03/08/2016

evidence.”

Gonzalez

v.

Pg: 11 of 15

Crosby,

545

U.S.

524,

528

(2005).

In

addition to the specific categories for relief in 60(b)(1)-(5),
60(b)(6) offers a catch-all provision that allows a court to
“relieve

a

judgment,

party

or

order,

or

its

legal

proceeding”

representative
for

“any

from

other

a

final

reason

that

justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).
Finding himself ineligible for any of the specific grounds
for relief in 60(b)(1)-(5), Moses rests his present motion on
the open-ended language of 60(b)(6). That provision, however,
has been firmly reined in by the Supreme Court. In Gonzalez v.
Crosby, the Court addressed a situation similar to the present
case: a 60(b) motion seeking to reopen a district court judgment
dismissing a federal habeas petition as time-barred by AEDPA’s
statute of limitations. 545 U.S. 524. The movant in Gonzalez
relied on a favorable change in habeas decisional law handed
down by the Supreme Court after the district court decision. Id.
at 527 (citing Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000)). Despite the
change in procedural law, Gonzalez made clear that 60(b)(6) is
not ordinarily available to those challenging previously denied
habeas

relief.

To

the

contrary,

a

showing

of

“extraordinary

circumstances” is required for a successful 60(b)(6) motion. 545
U.S.

at

Corp.,

535;

486

accord

U.S.

847,

Liljeberg
864

(1988)

States, 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950)).
11

v.

Health

(quoting

Servs.
Ackerman

Acquisition
v.

United

Appeal: 15-2

Doc: 42

Filed: 03/08/2016

As

word

the

interpretation

of

Pg: 12 of 15

“extraordinary”
the

federal

suggests,

statutes

“not

setting

every

forth

the

requirements for habeas provides cause for reopening cases long
since final.” Id. at 536. Underlying the Court’s concern was the
reality that changes in the habeas statutes and in the judicial
interpretation of habeas procedural rules are relatively common.
See id. at 536-37. Each new twist and turn runs the risk of
producing a tidal wave of 60(b) motions, just as Martinez has
done throughout the lower courts. Further, the potential for
60(b) motions to “impermissibly circumvent the requirement[s]”
for securing relief under AEDPA was evident. Id. at 532. The
prospect

of

having

the

open-ended

language

of

Rule

60(b)(6)

supplant the specific habeas constraints in AEDPA, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(b)-(i), led the Gonzalez Court to this conclusion: The
“extraordinary circumstances” required for relief under 60(b)(6)
would “rarely occur in the habeas context.” 545 U.S. at 535.
In light of Gonzalez’s cabined conception of Rule 60(b)(6)
in the habeas context, Moses’ motion for relief invoking the
change in procedural default rules occasioned by Martinez falls
well

short

of

“extraordinary.”

In

fact,

Moses’

ground

for

reopening judgment under 60(b)(6) is not extraordinary for the
same reasons Gonzalez’s was not extraordinary. Moses argues that
“[t]he

intervening

change

in

law

represented

by

Martinez . . . directly overruled the decision [of the district
12

Appeal: 15-2

Doc: 42

court]

Filed: 03/08/2016

for

which

Pg: 13 of 15

reconsideration

has

been

sought,”

thus

warranting relief from judgment under 60(b). J.A. 631. But that
is precisely the line of reasoning the Supreme Court rejected in
Gonzalez.

545

U.S.

at

536

(“Petitioner’s

only

ground

for

reopening the judgment denying his first federal habeas petition
is that our decision in Artuz showed the error of the District
Court’s

statute-of-limitations

ruling.”).

If

the

change

in

habeas decisional law at issue in Gonzalez cannot pass as an
extraordinary circumstance, then the change here should not fare
any better.
Moreover, Gonzalez was hardly a groundbreaking result. We
too have held that “a change in decisional law subsequent to a
final

judgment

provides

no

basis

for

relief

under

Rule

60(b)(6).” Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993
F.2d

46,

48

(4th

Cir.

1993)

(citing

Hall

v.

Warden,

Md.

Penitentiary, 364 F.2d 495, 496 (4th Cir. 1966) (en banc)). In
Hall v. Warden, for instance, we denied the state’s 60(b) motion
after

a

Supreme

Court

ruling

undermined

our

prior

judgment

granting post-conviction relief, noting that the matter “should
not be reopened merely upon a showing of inconsistency with [the
Supreme Court] decision.” 364 F.2d at 496.
Indeed,
consistency,

the
as

law
the

on

this

decisions

issue
of

other

reflects
circuits

an

admirable

attest.

See

Arthur v. Thomas, 739 F.3d 611, 631 (11th Cir. 2014) (declaring
13

Appeal: 15-2

Doc: 42

Filed: 03/08/2016

Pg: 14 of 15

that “the change in the decisional law effected by the Martinez
rule is not an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ sufficient to invoke
Rule 60(b)(6)”); Nash v. Hepp, 740 F.3d 1075, 1078-79 (7th Cir.
2014) (affirming the denial of petitioner’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion
since

he

presented

“the

‘mundane’

and

‘hardly

extraordinary’

situation in which the district court applied the governing rule
of

procedural

caselaw

default

changed

at

after

the

time

judgment

of

became

its

decision

final”);

and

McGuire

the
v.

Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst., 738 F.3d 741, 750-51 (6th Cir.
2013)
worked

(holding
by

that

the

Trevino

and

change

in

Martinez

procedural
is

not

default
an

rules

exceptional

circumstance justifying Rule 60(b)(6) relief because those cases
did not alter the constitutional rights of criminal defendants);
Adams v. Thaler, 679 F.3d 312, 319 (5th Cir. 2012) (noting that
a “change in decisional law after entry of judgment does not
constitute exceptional circumstances and is not alone grounds
for relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b)(6)” (quoting
Bailey v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., 894 F.2d 157, 160 (5th Cir.
1990))). Moreover, even those circuit cases referenced by Moses
are peppered with cautionary language, underscoring that “the
jurisprudential change rendered by Martinez, without more, does
not entitle a habeas petitioner to Rule 60(b)(6) relief.” Cox v.
Horn, 757 F.3d 113, 124 (3d Cir. 2014). We have no authority to
depart from the rulings of the Supreme Court or our own, and we
14

Appeal: 15-2

Doc: 42

Filed: 03/08/2016

Pg: 15 of 15

see no reason to depart from the gravamen of national circuit
law.
IV.
The

requirements

of

timeliness

and

of

“extraordinary

circumstances” are not the only obstacles impeding Moses from
securing relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Martinez emphasized that a
petitioner’s

ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel

claim

must

be a colorable one before post-conviction counsel can be deemed
ineffective for failing to raise it. See
(requiring

that

the

underlying

132 S. Ct. at 1318

ineffectiveness

claim

be

“substantial”). Citing that language, the government urges us to
make

the

additional

ineffective

at

trial

holdings
or

that

Moses’

sentencing,

counsel

that

was

there

was

not
no

ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel for failing to
raise

the

IATC

claim,

and

that

in

all

events

there

was

no

prejudice to Moses given the strength of the state’s case. We
decline, however, to reach those issues other than to note that
this case has long ago reached the point of churning procedures
without

prospect

of

practical

effect.

The

road

to

relief

stretches some distance, and Moses has faltered at the initial
steps. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is
AFFIRMED.

15