Tamayo v. Stephens, No. 14-70002 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, scheduled to be executed, appealed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief. Petitioner had filed successive habeas petitions alleging, among other things, that he did not receive a fair trial in light of newly discovered evidence and that his sentence was illegal and unconstitutional based on his alleged mental retardation. The petitions were denied and then petitioner filed the instant action seeking a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to set aside. The court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction over the Rule 60(b) motion. On the merits, the court concluded that, following Supreme Court precedent, a change in decisional law did not constitute the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to support Rule 60(b) relief; and petitioner's claim was not brought within a "reasonable time." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court, granted petitioner's motion for informa pauperis on appeal, and denied the stay of execution.
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.