Opinion ID: 2769981
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: lambrix’s claims

Text: Turning to the claims raised by Lambrix in the instant application, all of his claims save one—specifically, Claims 1-5 and 7-8—are essentially identical to those we already considered in Lambrix II, our order denying Lambrix’s 2010 successive application. We determined in our 2010 order that these proposed claims are barred either by § 2244(b)(1) because they were raised in Lambrix’s initial § 2254 petition or because they do not meet the statutory requirements of § 2244(b)(2)(B). Lambrix II, 624 F.3d at 1362-67. As to Claims 2 and 3—concerning Hanzel’s allegedly recanted testimony and the alleged sexual relationship between Smith and the investigator—Lambrix has pointed to no new evidence or change in the law to persuade us that an exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine applies in this instance. Accordingly, our reconsideration of Claims 2 and 3 in the instant application is precluded by the law-of-the-casedoctrine. 3 3 We reject Lambrix’s argument that we should “give no weight” to our 2010 order and consider his current counseled application as a matter of “first impression.” Moreover, as to Lambrix’s argument that we should disregard his prior application merely because it was submitted pro se, it is apparent from the face of our 2010 order that we liberally construed Lambrix’s claims, understood those claims, and concluded that those claims did not meet the § 2244(b)(2) criteria. See Lambrix II, 624 F.3d at 1362-67. In addition, there is no pro se prior petition exception to the § 2244(b)(2) requirements. 8 Case: 14-15617 Date Filed: 01/14/2015 Page: 9 of 12 As to Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8, Lambrix claims to have newly discovered evidence in support of these claims. However, as explained below, even if our consideration of these claims were not precluded by Lambrix II under the law of the case because of Lambrix’s alleged new evidence, an independently adequate alternative reason for denying the application as to these claims is that they are barred by the prior-panel-precedent rule or the failure to meet the requirements of § 2244(b)(2)(B). As to Claim 1—concerning Smith’s alleged immunity deal—in Lambrix II, we determined that Lambrix raised this claim in his initial § 2254 petition, such that it was barred under § 2244(b)(1). Lambrix II, 624 F.3d at 1362. In the instant successive application, Lambrix concedes that he raised this claim in his original § 2254 petition, but he argues that the “claim must be revisited in light of the new evidence” based on “fundamental fairness and to protect manifest injustice.” We must reject Lambrix’s argument because we are bound by our prior panel precedent in Hill, where we held that new evidence in support of a prior claim is insufficient to create a new claim and avoid § 2244(b)(1)’s bar on successive petitions. See In re Hill, 715 F.3d at 29294. As we explained in Hill, § 2244(b)(1) provides that “‘[a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed’” and “provides no exceptions.” Id. at 291 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)). As to Claims 4, 5, and 7—concerning the tire iron, alleged bias on the part of the state trial judge, and the alleged conspiracy between the State and Smith—when Lambrix raised these claims in his 2010 successive application, we concluded as to each claim that Lambrix failed to meet either prong of § 2244(b)(2)(B). Lambrix II, 624 F.3d at 1365-67. Although Lambrix presents various “new” documents in the instant application in support of these claims, none of 9 Case: 14-15617 Date Filed: 01/14/2015 Page: 10 of 12 Lambrix’s alleged new evidence changes our conclusion that Claims 4, 5, and 7 do not meet the requirements of § 2244(b)(2)(B). First, Lambrix has not shown that any of this evidence could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i). Specifically, he has failed to explain why his evidence could not have been uncovered through a reasonable investigation prior to the litigation of his initial § 2254 petition or why the means that eventually uncovered his new evidence could not have been employed earlier. See In re Boshears, 110 F.3d 1538, 1540 (11th Cir. 1997); In re Magwood, 113 F.3d 1544, 1549-50 (11th Cir. 1997). Second, even when supported by Lambrix’s alleged new evidence, we are unpersuaded that the alleged facts underlying Claims 4, 5, and 7, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the underlying murders. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii). As to Claim 8, Lambrix’s freestanding actual innocence claim, we concluded in our 2010 order that, even assuming that “a freestanding claim of actual innocence exists apart from any claim of constitutional error at trial and [that] such a claim, even if it is cognizable, is the kind of claim that can be brought in a second or successive petition,” Lambrix had not presented evidence sufficient to show his actual innocence. Lambrix II, 624 F.3d at 1367. In the present application, Lambrix repeatedly asserts that he is actually innocent and that, upon consideration of all of his claims and purported newly discovered evidence cumulatively, he is entitled to file a successive habeas petition based upon a “fundamental miscarriage of justice” showing under Schlup. We conclude that, even in light of Lambrix’s new arguments and alleged new evidence, his attempt to bring a freestanding actual innocence claim is foreclosed by our prior panel precedent in In re Davis, 565 F.3d 810 (11th Cir. 2009). Specifically, even if a freestanding 10 Case: 14-15617 Date Filed: 01/14/2015 Page: 11 of 12 actual innocence claim is viable on federal habeas review, we have held that § 2244(b)(2)(B) “undeniably requires a petitioner seeking leave to file a second or successive petition to establish actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence and another constitutional violation.” In re Davis, 565 F.3d at 824 (first emphasis added). 4 Lambrix has established no constitutional violation. Alternatively, as we concluded in Lambrix II, even if we were to assume that freestanding actual innocence claims are cognizable and that § 2244(b)’s requirements were to have no application to actual innocence claims, for the reasons stated above, Lambrix’s purported new facts, considered either individually or cumulatively, are insufficient to make either a prima facie showing that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of first-degree murder, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii), (b)(3)(C), or “a truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence.’” Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 417, 113 S. Ct. 853, 869 (1993) (assuming, without deciding, “that in a capital case a truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence’ made after trial would render the execution of the defendant unconstitutional,” but stating that “the threshold showing for such an assumed right would necessarily be extraordinarily high”). Finally, in Claim 6—Lambrix’s only claim not raised in some fashion in his 2010 successive application—Lambrix asserts that the State knowingly presented at trial false 4 Lambrix’s reliance on Schlup’s “fundamental miscarriage of justice” principle—which allows a habeas petitioner to receive consideration of procedurally defaulted claims based on a showing of actual innocence, see Schlup, 513 U.S. at 314-15, 115 S. Ct. at 860-61; Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 496, 106 S. Ct. 2639, 2649 (1986)—is misplaced. There is no “fundamental miscarriage of justice” exception to a state prisoner’s obligation to satisfy the statutory criteria in § 2244(b)(2)(B) in order to obtain our leave to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B). Indeed, the language of § 2244(b)(2)(B) itself already contemplates the possibility of claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence and sets forth the relevant preconditions to filing a second or successive § 2254 petition on that basis. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii). 11 Case: 14-15617 Date Filed: 01/14/2015 Page: 12 of 12 testimony by Smith that Lambrix left Bryant’s body in a pond “so if she wasn’t dead, she would drown.” In support of Claim 6, Lambrix presents alleged new evidence to show that the property where the murders occurred did not contain a pond. We conclude that Lambrix’s sixth proposed claim does not meet the § 2244(b)(2)(B) criteria. First, Lambrix has not explained why the evidence underlying this claim could not have been discovered prior to his first § 2254 petition through the exercise of due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i); Boshears, 110 F.3d at 1540. Second, Lambrix has failed to demonstrate that the facts underlying his claim would establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for a constitutional violation, no reasonable fact finder would have found Lambrix guilty of first-degree murder. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii). Even if Lambrix had been able to challenge or impeach Smith’s testimony at trial regarding the fact that he left Bryant’s body in a pond, this would not have materially changed her other testimony regarding the murders, nor would it have impacted the other testimony and physical evidence against him, such as two witness’s testimony regarding Lambrix’s admission about the murders or Chezem’s testimony that Lambrix borrowed a shovel from him. Thus, the presence or absence of a pond on the property is not a fact that would show that no reasonable factfinder could have found him guilty. Accordingly, this claim does not meet the requirements of § 2244(b)(2)(B).