Brandon D. Cox v. Patrice Richie Jones, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied Brandon D. Cox’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. The court held that Cox failed to identify a manifest injustice or manifest error of law or fact concerning the treatment of forensic-expert testimony and the denial of expert assistance. The court concluded that the cited testimony did not establish that the state forensic examiner failed to investigate exculpatory evidence or that the state court unreasonably denied expert funds.

Holdings

1. Rule 59(e) relief was unavailable because Cox challenged only an alternative merits analysis and did not challenge the primary dispositive basis for denying his habeas petition; therefore, he failed to identify an error warranting correction in the interests of justice or manifest-injustice relief.
2. Cox failed to establish a manifest error of fact because the cited testimony did not state that the forensic examiner failed to examine the devices for exculpatory evidence; it described the examiner's comparison protocols and the scope of the search warrant.
3. Cox was not entitled to Rule 59(e) relief because his claim was not based on clearly established federal law extending Ake beyond psychiatric assistance, and, even assuming such an extension, the record did not show that the state court unreasonably denied his request or that he was denied meaningful expert assistance.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Cox timely filed his Rule 59(e) motion.
2. Whether Cox established a manifest error of law or fact warranting alteration or amendment of the judgment denying his § 2254 petition.
3. Whether the record showed that the state court unreasonably denied Cox's requests for independent expert assistance under the test articulated in Moore v. Kemp.
4. Whether Cox's due process claim under Ake v. Oklahoma was based on clearly established federal law or otherwise demonstrated entitlement to forensic expert assistance.

Disposition

other