Opinion ID: 3047033
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gore’s Motion for a Stay of Execution

Text: A stay of execution is an equitable remedy that “is not available as a matter of right.” Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 584, 126 S.Ct. 2096, 2104 (2006). To warrant a stay of execution, an inmate must demonstrate that: “(1) he has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) he will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues; (3) the stay would not substantially harm the other litigant; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.” Powell v. Thomas, 641 F.3d 1255, 1257 (11th Cir. 2011); see also Hill, 547 U.S. at 584, 126 S.Ct. at 2104 (holding that inmate seeking a stay of execution “must satisfy all of the requirements for a stay, including a showing of a significant possibility of success on the merits”). Moreover, under Eleventh Circuit Rule 22- 4(a)(7), we may deny a temporary stay of execution if, after a hearing, we find that the merits of the appeal are “frivolous, or [are] lacking any factual basis in the record, or [are] squarely foreclosed by statute, rule, or authoritative court decision.” 11th Cir. R. 22-4(a)(7)(i). 7 Case: 13-12834 Date Filed: 06/27/2013 Page: 8 of 13 Gore has not shown a substantial or significant likelihood of success on the merits of the sole procedural issue identified in the district court’s COA. He cannot make that showing because the merits of that issue are “squarely foreclosed” by the exhaustion requirement set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Under § 2254(b), a federal court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus on a claim unless the petitioner has exhausted all available state court remedies regarding that claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A petitioner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement if, with certain exceptions that are not applicable in this case, he has failed to avail himself of “any available procedure” by which he has the right to raise his claim in state court. Id. § 2254(c). If a petitioner fails to exhaust his state remedies, a district court must dismiss the petition without prejudice to allow for such exhaustion. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519–20, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203–05 (1982); Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1156 (11th Cir. 2010). But see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) (“An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State.”). It is undisputed that Gore did not exhaust his Ford claim in state court before seeking federal habeas review of that claim, and he does not contend that either of the statutory exceptions, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B), are applicable. The question is whether, as Gore contends, the Supreme Court’s decision in Martinez 8 Case: 13-12834 Date Filed: 06/27/2013 Page: 9 of 13 created an exception to the exhaustion requirement where the failure to exhaust a Ford claim is alleged to have been caused by state collateral counsel’s ineffective assistance. Martinez, however, clearly does not apply in the circumstances of this case because Gore’s claim, though unexhausted, is not now procedurally barred, and it is not a claim that trial counsel was ineffective. Under the doctrine of procedural default, a federal habeas court may not review the merits of a claim that is procedurally barred unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice, or that he is actually innocent of his crime of conviction. Ward, 592 F.3d at 1157. Before its decision in Martinez, the Supreme Court had held that a petitioner cannot rely on the ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel to establish cause to excuse a procedural default because there is no constitutional right to an attorney in state post-conviction proceedings. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2566 (1991). In Martinez, however, the Court recognized a “narrow exception” to this general rule by holding that “[i]nadequate assistance of counsel at initial-review collateral proceedings may establish cause for a prisoner’s procedural default of a claim of ineffective assistance at trial.” 132 S.Ct. at 1315 (emphasis added). Repeatedly in its opinion, the Supreme Court emphasized the limited scope of the exception that it was crafting to the rule established in Coleman. The Court was 9 Case: 13-12834 Date Filed: 06/27/2013 Page: 10 of 13 careful to characterize its decision as a “limited qualification” to Coleman’s holding that negligence on the part of a prisoner’s post-conviction counsel does not constitute cause to excuse the procedural default of a claim in state court. Id. at 1315–16, 1319–20. And the Court made clear in Martinez that “[t]he rule of Coleman governs in all but the limited circumstances recognized here” — namely, “[w]here, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding” and “counsel in that proceeding was ineffective” for failing to raise such ineffective assistance claims. Id. at 1320. The Court also underscored that the concededly “narrow exception” it was adopting was meant to “reflect[] the importance of the right to the effective assistance of trial counsel” and that its holding “addresse[d] only the constitutional claims presented in this case, where the State barred the defendant from raising the claims [of ineffective assistance of trial counsel] on direct appeal.” Id. By its own emphatic terms, the Supreme Court’s decision in Martinez is limited to claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel that are otherwise procedurally barred due to the ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel. Gore is not asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. And while his Ford claim is unexhausted in state court, it is not procedurally defaulted and, as such, is not subject to any of the exceptions to the procedural default rule, including the one recognized in Martinez. 10 Case: 13-12834 Date Filed: 06/27/2013 Page: 11 of 13 An unexhausted claim is not procedurally defaulted unless it is evident that any future attempts at exhaustion would be futile due to the existence of a state procedural bar. Bailey v. Nagle, 172 F.3d 1299, 1303, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999). There is no state procedural rule preventing Gore from raising his Ford claim in state court. To the contrary, Florida Rule 3.811 creates a specific mechanism through which state death-row inmates can challenge in state court their competency to be executed, and the Florida Supreme Court has specifically stated that there is no filing deadline for bringing such a claim. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.811(d); Provenzano v. State, 751 So. 2d 37, 40 (Fla. 1999) (acknowledging that Rule 3.811 “does not contain a timetable for filing”). The district court in this case found that the Florida courts would not refuse to hear Gore’s Ford claim based on a procedural bar, and the State has assured us that there is nothing in Florida law to suggest that the state courts would refuse to consider the merits of a Rule 3.811 motion. Gore does not contend that his Ford claim is procedurally barred and instead concedes in his brief to us that “[a]ny conclusion that a state procedural bar would be applied to a Rule 3.811 motion filed at this time would be speculative.” App. Br. at 46. Moreover, although the Supreme Court has recognized several exceptions to the judicially-created procedural bar doctrine, see, e.g., Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 81–88, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2503–07 (1977) (creating an exception to the 11 Case: 13-12834 Date Filed: 06/27/2013 Page: 12 of 13 procedural default rule when the petitioner can show cause for the default and prejudice from it), the Court has not recognized any equitable exceptions to the statutory bars on habeas petitions when the petitioner does not make a “credible showing” of actual innocence. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1931, 1933 (2013). The Supreme Court’s most recent decision on the matter, McQuiggin, reaffirmed that principle, holding that there is an “equitable exception” to the statute of limitations applicable to habeas claims, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), but only when the petitioner presents new evidence that “shows it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted the petitioner.” Id. at 1931, 1933 (alteration and quotation marks omitted). The Court’s opinion expressly limited its holding to that situation, stating that “AEDPA’s time limitations apply to the typical case in which no allegation of actual innocence is made.” Id. at 1933. Gore does not claim actual innocence and the exhaustion statute does not provide for the exception that Gore asks us to create. McQuiggin reaffirms that in these circumstances we lack the authority to rewrite the statute and create an exception that Congress did not enact. Because Gore’s claim is not procedurally barred and it does not raise an allegation of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, Martinez by its own terms does not, and cannot, excuse his failure to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of § 2254(b). Unless and until the Supreme Court overrules the limitations it placed on 12 Case: 13-12834 Date Filed: 06/27/2013 Page: 13 of 13 its Martinez decision, we are bound to respect and apply them. Because the plain meaning and obvious import of those explicit limitations are not debatable among jurists of reason, Gore has not made the required showing for a COA, regardless of the merits or lack of merit of his underlying claim. The district court should not have granted a COA on the Martinez/exhaustion issue. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000) (holding that a COA should issue only “when the prisoner shows, at least, 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.”). The sole issue presented in this appeal is clearly foreclosed by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), and authoritative decisions. See 11th Cir. R. 22-4(7). As for the State’s motion to vacate the COA, see Clisby v. Alabama, 52 F.3d 905, 906 n.1 (11th Cir. 1995). The district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice Gore’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is AFFIRMED. The State’s motion to vacate the certificate of appealability is DENIED AS MOOT. The stay of execution previously entered by this Court is VACATED. The Petitioner’s motion for a stay of execution is DENIED. 13