Springs v. Hobbs

Filing 247

ORDER denying 243 Thomas Springs's amended motion to expand the certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 11/16/2022. (kdr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
CAPITAL CASE
THOMAS LEO SPRINGS
v.

PETITIONER

CASE NO. 5:13-CV-00005 BSM

WENDY KELLEY, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction

RESPONDENT
ORDER

Thomas Springs’s amended motion to expand the certificate of appealability [Doc.
No. 243] is denied. He acknowledges that after judgment was entered [Doc. No. 207], the
Supreme Court held that 28 U.S.C. section 2254(e)(2)’s stringent evidentiary restrictions
apply to procedurally defaulted ineffectiveness-of-trial-counsel claims. Shinn v. Ramirez,
596 U.S. __, 142 S.Ct. 1718 (2022). Springs contends that hearing evidence remains
available for habeas review because he has satisfied section 2254(e)(2) requirements.
For constitutional claims denied on the merits, Springs must show “that reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or
wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). For procedurally barred claims, he
must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid
claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. (emphasis added).
Springs has not made the required showing for a certificate of appealability on any of the
issues he raises.

1. Incompetency Claim
Springs is not entitled to a certificate of appealability on his procedurally defaulted
incompetency claim. Based on circuit precedent, reasonable jurists would not debate that this
claim is subject to habeas exhaustion requirements. Weekley v. Jones, 76 F.3d 1459 (8th Cir.
1996) (en banc) (adopting reasoning of Weekley v. Jones, 56 F.3d 889, 894–95 (8th Cir.
1995)). Reasonable jurists would also not debate whether a stay is appropriate so that
Springs can pursue state-court remedies for his claim related to incompetency. For the
reasons outlined in the 2014 order, state-court remedies are not available. Doc. No. 29 at
56–62.
2. Excuses for Procedural Default
Springs has similarly not presented a debatable question as to whether his alleged
incompetency is cause to excuse the procedural default of any of his claims. This is true
because he did not make a “conclusive showing” of his incompetence during the state-court
proceedings. Gordon v. Ark., 823 F.3d 1188, 1196–97 (8th Cir. 2016). Further, a certificate
is not warranted on whether procedural default is overcome by a miscarriage of justice. For
the reasons stated in the final order, Springs’s actual innocence argument fails—both as a
freestanding claim and as an excuse for procedural default. Doc. No. 206 at 58–59.
3. Ineffectiveness Claim Related to Traumatic Childhood
Springs contends that new evidence introduced at the pre-Shinn hearing remains
available for habeas review because his ineffectiveness claims satisfy section 2254(e)(2).

2

Springs also continues to press for record expansion on his procedurally defaulted
ineffectiveness claim that his trial lawyers’ penalty-phase work was constitutionally deficient
for failing to present traumatic-childhood evidence. When a habeas petitioner fails to
develop the factual basis of a claim in state court, a federal court may hold an evidentiary
hearing in only very narrow circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Because there is no
constitutional right to post-conviction counsel, that lawyer’s lack of diligence in developing
the state-court record is attributable to the petitioner. Shinn, 142 S.Ct. at 1734–35.
Springs argues that he is not at fault for failing to develop ineffectiveness claims
because he was incompetent, but he has not demonstrated that he was incompetent during the
state-court proceedings and his post-conviction lawyer’s failure to develop the
ineffectiveness claims is attributable to him. He has not cleared the section 2254(e)(2) hurdle
for habeas review of new evidence and makes no argument that his claims meet the statutory
exceptions. A certificate on this issue is therefore not warranted.
4. Ineffectiveness Claim Related to Lack-of-Capacity Defense
With or without consideration of the pre-Shinn hearing evidence, Springs is not
entitled to a certificate on his procedurally defaulted ineffectiveness claim related to the lackof-capacity defense. Reasonable jurists would not debate whether this claim is substantial
under a Martinez-Trevino analysis. See Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 14 (2012); Trevino v.
Thaler, 569 U.S. 413, 428–29 (2013). Paul Deyoub, the court-appointed psychologist, found
no evidence of psychosis, past hallucinations, or delusions. Doc. No. 206 at 27. He reported

3

to the trial court that “anger and rage do not constitute a mental disease or inability to
conform one’s conduct to the requirements of the law,” and diagnosed Springs with
adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Id. at 27, 54.
In seeking an expanded certificate, Springs continues to challenge Deyoub’s findings.
He contends Deyoub’s conclusions must be discounted because his evaluation was
abbreviated, and because Deyoub did not have the benefit of a complete social-history
investigation. Trial lawyers, however, continued to search for potential mitigating evidence
and retained Dr. Bradley Diner to re-evaluate Springs. At the evidentiary hearing, Springs
introduced the lead trial lawyer’s notes of his conversation with Diner. Diner told trial
lawyers that Springs’s murder of his estranged wife was “clearly premeditated,” and that his
mental issues did not rise to a defense under the law. Doc. No. 206 at 27–28. He reported
that Springs described a history of domestic abuse and showed no remorse. Id.
Reasonable jurists would not debate whether “a more thorough evaluation, a different
expert, or a new diagnosis would have made a difference” in the guilt phase. Id. at 39. For
the reasons given in the 2014 order, overwhelming evidence supported the jury’s finding that
the murder was deliberate and premeditated. See Doc. No. 29 at 62–68. Springs’s new
habeas expert, psychiatrist Bhushan Agharkar, testified that the circumstances of the murder
pointed to manic behavior, but he also admitted that Springs may have been simply angry that
his wife left him. Doc. No. 206 at 53–54.
5. Ineffectiveness Claim Related to Mental Illness and Impairment

4

Springs’s procedurally defaulted penalty-phase ineffectiveness claim related to mental
illness and impairment fares no better. Reasonable jurists would not debate whether Springs
alleged a substantial claim that could overcome the “strong presumption that counsel’s
conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689–90 (1984). Springs continues to argue that trial lawyers
should have spent more time investigating his childhood for abuse and other traumatic
events. His lawyers’ work, however, must be viewed in light of Springs’s statements and
actions. See Id. at 691. Springs did not want to go in that direction for trial.
Springs also repeats his argument that trial lawyers should have worked harder to
uncover a potentially mitigating diagnosis. He contends that, because his lawyers’ socialhistory investigation was inadequate, Deyoub and Diner did not have a sufficient basis for
their opinions. Despite this argument, Springs has not demonstrated that more investigation
at the time of trial would have made a difference. He stood trial for capital murder in
November 2005. By the time of the habeas investigation, family dynamics had changed and
Springs’s children were grown. Further, while Agharkar later diagnosed Springs with
schizoaffective disorder, that diagnosis was based on information arising years after trial and
unavailable to state-court lawyers.
Reasonable jurists also would not debate whether Springs alleged a substantial claim
that Strickland prejudice resulted from the alleged error. The strength of the aggravators and
the murder circumstances were too much to overcome. Springs did not show a reasonable

5

probability that his sentence would have been different if his trial lawyers had worked harder
to pursue a diagnosis of mental illness and impairment. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of November, 2022.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6