Henderson v. Davis

Full title: JAMES LEE HENDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant v. LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Aug 9, 2017

868 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2017)

Opinion

No. 14-70001

08-09-2017

James Lee HENDERSON, Petitioner–Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent–Appellee

Eric M. Albritton, Albritton Law Firm, Longview, TX, Elizabeth L. DeRieux, Capshaw DeRieux, L.L.P., Gladewater, TX, for Petitioner–Appellant. Arthur D'Andrea, Stephen M. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Matthew Hamilton Frederick, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Solicitor General, Austin, TX, for Respondent–Appellee. Sheri L. Johnson, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, for Amici Curiae American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and Arc of the United States. Mark Keith Glasser, Senior Litigation Attorney, Sidley Austin, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Amicus Curiae Texas Psychological Association.

PER CURIAM.

Eric M. Albritton, Albritton Law Firm, Longview, TX, Elizabeth L. DeRieux, Capshaw DeRieux, L.L.P., Gladewater, TX, for Petitioner–Appellant.Arthur D'Andrea, Stephen M. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Matthew Hamilton Frederick, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Solicitor General, Austin, TX, for Respondent–Appellee.

Sheri L. Johnson, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, for Amici Curiae American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and Arc of the United States.

Mark Keith Glasser, Senior Litigation Attorney, Sidley Austin, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Amicus Curiae Texas Psychological Association.

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

This Court affirmed the district court's denial of Henderson's successive federal habeas petition in which he claimed that he is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible to be executed under Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). Henderson v. Stephens , 791 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2015). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded this case to us for further consideration in the light of Moore v. Texas , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 1039, 197 L.Ed.2d 416 (2017). Henderson v. Davis , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 1450, 197 L.Ed.2d 644 (2017). It appears that the remand from the Supreme Court is best vetted and addressed first by the district court.

Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND this case to the district court for further proceedings in the light of Moore .