NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0689n.06 Nos. 10-6333, 10-6338 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
In re: STEPHEN MI CHAEL WES T, (10-6333) Mo va nt,
STEPHEN MI CHAEL

WES T, (10-6338) Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla

nt,
v. RI CKY BE L L , Warden, Respondent-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On Tra

nsfer and Appe al from the United States District Court for the Easter n District of Tenne ssee

B e fo re : B OG GS, NO RRI S, a nd MO OR E, Cir c uit

Judg e s. BO GGS, Circuit J u d ge. S t ephen Michael West, who is scheduled to be executed on November

9, 2010, filed a motion for relief from judg ment in district court. The district cour t considere d the motion to be a sec ond or succ essive petition for a writ of habe as cor pus and transfe rre d it to thi s court. We dismiss t he petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)
. In 1 98 7, Ste ph e n Mic ha e l Wes t wa s c on vic te d b y a Te nn e sse e jur

y of tw o c ounts of

fi rs tdeg ree murder, two c ounts of ag g ravated ki dnapping , once count of aggravated ra pe, and one count of larc eny . W

est v . B e ll , 550 F.3d 542, 546 ( 6th Cir. 2008), cert. de nied , 130 S. Ct . 1687 (2010). The fir st victim, a 15-y ear -old g irl, was ra ped and tor

tured be fore beingstabbed to death. Ib id . TheNos. 10-6333, 10-6338

W est v . B e ll

- 2 - second victim, the g irl’s mother, wa s tortured a nd then stabbed to de ath. Ib id
. West was sentenc ed to death. Id . at 547. On Fe bruar

y 20, 2001, West filed a petition for a writ of habe as corpus in district court. Id
. at 549-50. West asser

ted 22 sepa

rat e gro u n d s for r elief, inc luding a n ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel c laim. Id . at 550. The district c ourt dismissed the petition on S eptember 30, 2004. Ib id
. On Dec ember

18, 2008, this court aff

irmed the distri ct co urt’s dismissal of West’s habeas petition. Id . at 546. I n consideringWest’s ineffe ctive assistanc e cla im, we held that the state court used t he wrong standard f or dete rmining pr ejudice unde r Strickland
. Id
. at 553. Acc ording ly , we conducte d a de novo r eview of the claim, but nonetheless c oncluded that West’s re prese ntation was constitutionally

sufficie nt, and in the alter native, that West suffer ed no pre judice. Id . at 554-56. On Octobe r 15, 2010, West filed what he de scribed a s a Rule 60(b) motion for r elief f rom jud g me nt i n d istri c t c ourt . In h is m oti on , W est a lle g e d th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt –a nd thi s court–“ misapprehe n[ded] the interplay betwee n sections 2254(d) an d 2 2 54(e) of AEDPA” and the re fo re fa ile d to c on sid e r a n in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l c la im p re mis e d u po n a fa ilur e to prese nt specific pie ces of

evidenc e. Specif

ically , West argues t hat, when this court conducted a de
no vo re vie w o f h is i ne ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e c la im, it s ho uld

have c onsi dere d all ava ila ble evidenc e–includingevidenc e not pre sented to the state court–a nd that intervening case law indicate s that this court should have c onsidered suc h evidenc e. The district cour

t concluded that West’s Rul e 60(b) motion was actua lly , i n substance, a
su c c e ssi ve ha

be a s p e tit ion . A c c or din g ly , th e dis tr ic t cou rt iss ue d anor de r o n O c tob e r 2 7, 20 10 , in which it transfe rre d the petition to this court in li gh t o f AE DP A’s re quirements for second orNos. 10-6333, 10-6338

W est v . B e ll

- 3 - succe ssive habea s petitions. 28 U.S.C . § 2244(b)( 3); 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Upon entry of the tra nsfer order , the ca se wa s dockete d in this court as docke t number 10-6333. Th a t sa me da y , We st f ile d a mot ion fo r a

c e rt if ic a te of a pp e a la bil ity in d ist ri c t c ourt , a s w e ll as a notice of appe al of the district c ourt’s transf er or der. That appeal

– al s o o f t h e dis trict court’ s de c isi on to t re a t We st’ s 6 0( b) mot ion a s a se c on d o r s uc c e ssi ve pe tit ion and trans fe r i t to thi s court–wa s dockete d separ ately as docke t number 10-6338. We ag ree that West’s Rule 60(b) motion should be treated as a second or succe ssive habea s petition and conclude that, beca use the pe tition prese nts a claim that was already prese nted in West’s initial habeas pe tition, t he petition must be dismis sed. Id
. at § 2244(b)( 1) (“A claim prese nted i n a second or succe ssive habea s application under section 2254 that was pre sented in a pr ior application shall be dismissed.”). West argues otherw ise. He asserts i n eff ect that, althoug h we previously held that his counsel was not ineff

ective f or fa iling to present piece s of evidence A throug h F, we di d not consider f or the
same p r o p o s it io n w h e th e r h is c o un s e l w a s in e f f e c ti v e f o r f a il in g to p r e s e n t p ie c e s o f e v id ence G throug h Z . West contends that this constitutes a sepa rate claim that we ne ver r eac hed bec ause w e misunderstood AEDPA, and that this mistake of law qualifies as an “e x traordina ry circ umstance” for pur poses of Rule 60(b) (6). How ever , in our previous ha beas decision, we held that the district
cour t did not abuse its discretion by ref using to e x pand the r ecor d to consider the a dditional evidenc e, and w e fur

ther he ld that even ha d West’s attorney s discovere d the evidence of past abuse, there is not “‘a rea sonable probability ’ t hat t he procee ding would have be en diffe rent.” W est , 550 F.3d at 550-51, 556. Notwithstanding West’s ar tful fra ming of his argument, he simply

argues thatNos. 10-6333, 10-6338

W est v . B e ll

- 4 - these holding s were incorre ct and ther efor e pres en t s “a rule 60(b) motion that seeks to revisit the fe de ra l c ourt ’s de nia l on

the me ri ts o f a

c la im f or re lie f [that] sh ou ld [ the re fo re ] be tr e a te d a s a
succe ssive habea s petition.” Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524, 534 (2005). We need not conside r West’s arguments reg arding intervening case law or whether we e rre d in applying A EDPA, as whether or not we committ ed a leg al error in revie wing West’s first petition, AEDPA mandates the di s m i s s al of this petition because it presents the ve ry same c laim that we previously

considere d
. I n W es t’s habea s appea l, we conside red whether West’s counsel was ineffe ctive for

failingto present c erta in pieces of evidenc e that painted W est as a trouble d individual who was a

“produc t of an u n s t ab l e and abusive home.” W est , 550 F.3d at 556. West’s counsel instead prese nted evidenc e that painted West a s “a g ood and dece nt citiz en.” Ib id . West’s “new”
c la im is that hi s c ouns e l w a s in e ff e c tiv e fo r f

a ili ngto p re se nt additional piece s of evidenc e that–like the e vid e nc e we a lr e a dy

c on sid e re d–

pa int ed Wes t a s a

tr ou ble d in div idu a l. M or e e vid e nc e to support the same a

rgument is not a new “ assert ed federa l basis for re lief fr om a state c ourt’s judgme nt of conviction.” Gonzalez , 545 U. S. at 53 0; In re Bowling , 422 F.3d 434, 439-40 (6th Cir. 20 05 ) ( ho ldi ng that new e vid e nc e to es ta bli sh ine ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l do e s n ot c on sti tut e
a new claim for pur

poses of §2244(b) (1)) . Such a nar row de finition of “claim” w ould eviscer ate § 2244(b)( 1) and the ref

ore c an not be a

proper construction of the term. We theref

ore D I SMI SS W est’s sec on dor succ essive petition for a writ of habe as cor

pus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)
.Nos. 10-6333, 10-6338

W est v . B e ll

- 5 - We also DI SMI SS W est’s appe al o f t h e d i strict court’s tra nsfer order . Transf

er or ders of second or succe ssive habea s petitions are not appea lable. Howard v. United States , 533 F.3d 472, 474 (6th Cir. 2008).Nos. 10-6333, 10-6338

W est v . B e ll

- 6 - KA REN NELSO N MOORE, Circuit Judge, concurring. Although I must ag ree with the
ma jor ity tha t We st’ s ef

fo rt s con sti tut e a se c on d or suc c e ssi ve ha be a s a pp lic a tio n s ub

je c t to 28 U. S.C. § 2244(b)’ s g ateke epingrequire ments under Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524 (2005), I continue to adher e to my conclusion that West re ceive d ineffe ctive assistance of counse l at the pena lty phase. W est v . B e ll , 550 F.3d 542, 567- 70 (6th Cir. 2008) (Moore , J ., dissenting in par t).