In re Byron Lewis Black

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · August 1, 2025 · No. 25-5677

Summary

This Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals order addresses a pro se motion by death row inmate Byron Lewis Black seeking authorization to file a second or successive federal habeas corpus petition. Black argues that his claim of incompetency to be executed under common-law standards of "idiocy" is not subject to the restrictions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) because it was unripe until his execution date was set. The court concludes that the claim was previously raised and adjudicated in his first habeas petition, effectively relitigating his intellectual disability claim rather than presenting a new competency-to-be-executed claim under controlling Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the court denies the motion to remand, refuses authorization to file the successive petition, and denies Black's motion for a stay of execution.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Boggs; Griffin; Davis
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decision date
August 1, 2025
Docket number
25-5677
Procedural posture
Motion for authorization to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b) transferred from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Byron Lewis Black v. United States
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

post-conviction reliefsuccessive petitionscompetency to be executedhabeas corpuscriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Black's current §2254 petition constitutes a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b).
  2. Whether Black's competency‑to‑be‑executed claim is ripe and new for purposes of a second or successive petition.
  3. Whether the district court erred in denying authorization to file a second or successive petition.

Holdings

  1. The court held that Black's claim has already been raised in a prior §2254 petition and is not a new or ripe claim; therefore the motion for authorization to file a second or successive petition is denied.
  2. The court denied the stay of execution, finding that Black has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits and that the other three factors weigh against a stay.

Key quotations

“the critical question [in the competency-to-be-executed analysis] is whether a prisoner’s mental state is so distorted by mental illness that he lacks a rational understanding of the State’s rationale for [his] execution.” (at 269)
“A stay of execution is an equitable remedy.” (at 584)

Factual background

In 1989 Black murdered his girlfriend and her two daughters. He was sentenced to death for one murder and life imprisonment for the other two. He filed state post‑conviction petitions that were denied, and a federal habeas petition in 2000 asserting intellectual disability under Atkins. The district court later denied relief and remanded for limited consideration of the mental‑retardation claim. Black later asserted a competency‑to‑be‑executed claim based on common‑law "idiocy" standards.

Procedural history

Black was convicted of three murders in 1989 and sentenced to death and life imprisonment. He pursued state post‑conviction relief unsuccessfully, filed his first federal §2254 habeas petition in 2000 raising intellectual‑disability claims, which was denied and remanded. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. After execution dates were set, Black raised a competency‑to‑be‑executed claim. The district court transferred the case to this court for a second‑or‑successive petition authorization, which Black now seeks.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…