Arthur v. Thomas, No. 12-13952 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a death row inmate convicted of murder, appealed the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) Motion for Relief from Judgment, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision of Martinez v. Ryan constituted an extraordinary circumstance sufficient to justify the reopening of the final judgment of his prior 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition. Martinez involved the procedural default doctrine as to an ineffective-trial-counsel claim in initial-review state collateral proceedings. The court concluded that Martinez did not apply to petitioner's section 2254 petition that was barred by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2244(d), statute of limitations. Even assuming that the Martinez rule changed or affected in some way the decisional law about AEDPA's statute of limitations and equitable tolling, any such change in law was not an extraordinary circumstance warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.