Miller v. Bell
| Citation | 655 F.Supp.2d 838 |
| Decision Date | 10 September 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:01-CV-487.,3:01-CV-487. |
| Parties | David Earl MILLER, Petitioner, v. Ricky BELL, Warden, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Stephen M. Kissinger, Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee, Inc., Knoxville, TN, for Petitioner.
Jennifer L. Smith, Office of the Attorney General, Nashville, TN, Leonard Green, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Cincinatti, OH, for Respondent.
Following his 1982 Knox County conviction of first-degree murder, sentence of death, and pursuit of direct and collateral review in the state courts, petitioner David Earl Miller ["Miller"] filed this petition and amended petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Thereafter, both parties moved for summary judgment—Miller with respect to one claim and respondent with respect to all claims raised in the amended petition. The Court denied the former motion; granted the latter; denied the petition; dismissed the case; and granted issuance of a Certificate of Appealability with respect to four of Miller's twenty-five grounds for relief.
Now before the Court are Miller's motion to alter or amend that judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e); a response in opposition by respondent warden; Miller's reply to the Warden's response; and Miller's two notices of supplemental authority. [Docs. 87, 89-90, 93-94]. Respondent, pursuant to the Court's order, has supplemented the record with the technical record of Miller's state post-conviction proceedings. [Doc. 100, Addenda 33, 34]. For the following reasons, the Court will DENY Miller's motion.
In the early evening hours of May 20, 1981, Miller, who was at the Hideaway Lounge in downtown Knoxville, had a telephone conversation with Lee Standifer. Ms. Standifer had been seen previously with Miller at a cafeteria at the bus station. Miller met her a few blocks away at the Y.W.C.A., where she lived, and together they visited the Hideaway Lounge, the Knoxville Public Library, and the bus station cafeteria. Afterwards, Miller hired a taxi and he and Ms. Standifer were driven to West Knoxville and dropped off near the home where Miller was living. This is the last time Ms. Standifer was seen alive.
Later that evening, the homeowner, Mr. Benjamin Calvin Thomas, returned to find wet floors in his basement garage and upstairs kitchen and two streams of blood leading from the living room to the dining room and kitchen area. Thomas asked about the condition of the floors, and Miller explained that he had "hosed" out the basement floor to clean it and had received a bloody nose in a fight. Thomas told Miller that he must leave, and early the next morning, with the understanding that Miller intended to hitch-hike to Texas, Thomas drove him to a nearby Interstate exit.
Returning home that evening, Thomas saw a blue T-shirt hanging from a dogwood tree in his backyard and, underneath another tree in an adjoining leaf-filled thicket, a nude female body lying face-up. The face, head, and portions of the body were covered in dried blood; the arms were stretched up over the head; and rope had been tied around the neck, wound up to bind the wrists, and extended to a length sufficient to drag the body.
During the investigation which followed, Miller became a suspect. Days later, he was apprehended in Ohio, and, after waiving extradition, was returned to Knoxville. There, he confessed and was tried for first-degree murder; convicted; and sentenced to death. On direct appeal, his conviction was affirmed, but his sentence was vacated and the case was remanded for a new sentencing hearing. State v. Miller, 674 S.W.2d 279 (Tenn.1987). Apparently, the first re-sentencing hearing ended in a mistrial. [Addendum 7, vol. 3 at 117, 132-33]. However, at the second hearing, Miller again received the death penalty. The state supreme court denied his second direct appeal, and the United States Supreme Court denied his subsequent petition for a writ of certiorari. State v. Miller, 771 S.W.2d 401 (Tenn. 1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1031, 110 S.Ct. 3292, 111 L.Ed.2d 801 (1990). He was unsuccessful in obtaining post-conviction relief, Miller v. State, 1999 WL 1046415 (Tenn.Crim.App. Nov. 19, 1999); Miller v. State, 54 S.W.3d 743 (Tenn.2001), or further review by the Supreme Court. Miller v. Tennessee, 536 U.S. 927, 122 S.Ct. 2598, 153 L.Ed.2d 785 (2002). This petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 then followed.
In his motion to alter or amend, Miller challenges the Court's substantive and/or procedural disposition of eleven of the twenty-five claims offered in his petition, i.e., Claims I-III, VII (part), IX, X, XV, XVI, XVII, XIX, and XXIV, suggesting that the Court overlooked or misapprehended relevant law and facts in granting summary judgment to respondent.
Rule 59(e) authorizes motions to alter or amend a judgment if filed within ten days. However, under Rule 59(e), the district court has considerable discretion as to whether to alter or amend or reconsider an earlier ruling. Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir.1993); Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Ltd. Corp., 951 F.2d 110, 112 (6th Cir.1991). The court must balance the need for finality with the need to render just decisions. Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc., 6 F.3d at 355. However, "[i]n practice, because of the narrow purposes for which they are intended, Rule 59(e) motions typically are denied." 11 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1 at 128; see also Ruscavage v. Zuratt, 831 F.Supp. 417, 418 (E.D.Pa.1993) (). A Rule 59(e) motion is "aimed at reconsideration, not initial consideration." F.D.I.C v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992) (citations omitted). Thus, the motion should "either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence," id., or show an intervening change in controlling law. GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir.1999);
To streamline the discussion, the Court has divided the claims into two principle categories, as did Miller in his Rule 59(e) motion.
In these claims, Miller alleges that he was denied his constitutional right to his own mental health expert to assist in his defense at trial. Citing Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), Miller asserts that it violates due process, equal protection, and his right to the effective assistance of counsel to deny him, as an indigent defendant, the funds to hire his own expert, given that "[t]here is no doubt but that Mr. Miller's mental health was substantially in question during the guilt phase of his capital trial." [Doc. 87 at 5].
Miller's first argument is that, contrary to what the Court held in its prior opinion, these claims are not barred by the doctrine in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989).1 Respondent offers no straightforward response to Miller's argument, apparently abandoning his previous position that application of the Ake rule is barred by the Teague doctrine. Instead, respondent insists that, under § 2254(d)'s standards, the controlling legal rules for this claim are to be found in Supreme Court holdings as of the time of the state court's 1984 decision. He further explains that a state court cannot be faulted when its opinions do not encompass legal principles or analytical guidelines not yet promulgated. These arguments, whether correct or not, do not undermine Miller's position that his claim is not Teague-barred—a position with which the Court agrees.
The Supreme Court has held that "a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a `clear break' with the past." Griffith v. Ky., 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). Ake was decided on February 26, 1985, and Miller's conviction did not become final until June 28, 1990, after his direct appeal from his re-sentencing, when the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Miller v. Tennessee, 497 U.S. 1031, 110 S.Ct. 3292, 111 L.Ed.2d 801 (1990). See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 127 S.Ct. 793, 798-99, 166 L.Ed.2d 628 (2007) ( ) (citing Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937)); Griffith, 479 U.S. at 321 n. 6, 107 S.Ct. 708 (); Flynt v. Ohio, 451 U.S. 619, 620, 101 S.Ct. 1958, 68 L.Ed.2d 489 (1981) ().
Though Miller might have pursued further review of the state supreme court's 1984 decision affirming his conviction, see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 85 n. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963),2 he was not required to do so for Teague purposes. But see Gretzler v. Stewart, 112 F.3d 992, 1004 (9th Cir.1997) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Verrett v. Vannoy
...1810147 (defense of intoxication to negate specific-intent crime is not one of legal insanity governed by Ake); Miller v. Bell, 655 F.Supp.2d 838, 851 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 10, 2009). Nor did Verrett place his sanity at issue by offering his own unsupported statements that he abused steroids an......
-
Miller v. Colson
...processes were normal, and Gee concluded that he did not believe Miller was insane at the time of the offense. Miller v. Bell, 655 F.Supp.2d 838, 847 (E.D.Tenn.2009).1 On December 11, 1981, Miller filed a “motion for appointment of psychiatric expert,” requesting that the trial court appoin......
-
Hubbard v. United States
...Petitioner has the burden of making a threshold showing that his mental condition is "seriously in question." Miller v. Bell, 655 F. Supp. 2d 838, 851 (E.D. Tenn. 2009). To meet this burden Petition must supply particular facts and not just make general allegations of a need for a mental ev......
-
Reichert v. United States, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-1275
...condition is 'seriously in question.'" Hubbard v. U.S., 2013 WL 527810, *5 (E.D. Tenn. February 11, 2013), quoting Miller v. Bell, 655 F. Supp.2d 838, 851 (E.D. Tenn. 2009). Here, petitioner has offered nothing beyond a passing reference, or at best, a conclusory allegation of his need for ......