Cardenas v. Thaler
651 F.3d 442
5th Cir.2011Background
- Ramirez Cárdenas, a Mexican national, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Texas.
- His initial federal habeas petition was dismissed; he later sought a COA and then a successive petition on VCCR grounds (Avena/Medellin context).
- ICJ ruled in Avena that the U.S. violated VCCR obligations; Medellin v. Texas held the ICJ decision and Bush memo had no domestic force to compel review.
- Texas officials moved to implement Avena; the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to obtain permission for a successive petition.
- This court affirmed the district court’s dismissal from a jurisdictional COA requirement, then remanded to consider COA issuance.
- The majority remands for district court consideration of whether a COA should issue; the dissent would suspend Rule 22 under Rule 2 and deny COA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the court without jurisdiction to rule on COA absent district COA ruling? | Ramirez Cárdenas argues lack of COA ruling bars appellate review. | The majority holds jurisdictional bar under former Rule 22 prevents review unless district COA issued. | Remand to district court to decide COA. |
| Can Rule 2 suspend Rule 22 to allow appellate COA ruling despite no district COA? | Rule 2 allows suspending jurisdictional rules in select cases. | Rule 2 cannot suspend jurisdictional requirements of Rule 22. | Majority declines Rule 2 suspension; remands for COA consideration. |
| Do 2009 amendments affect the Rule 22 preemption of COA review? | Amendments might alter jurisdictional framework for COA review. | Amendments not clearly applicable here; prior Rule 22 governs for pending case. | Apply pre-2009 Rule 22; remand for COA decision. |
| Does Slack v. McDaniel govern whether a COA is debatable when district ruling is procedural? | Slack shows COA should issue if debatable under procedural ruling. | Slack is satisfied if there is potential merit and procedural error. | COA may be warranted; issue unresolved pending district COA decision. |
| Should the court grant COA based on Leal Garcia framework for Avena/Medellin claims? | Leal Garcia undermines Medellin/ Avena relief; COA debatable. | Medellin forecloses relief; Leal Garcia controls. | COA warranted for further review; remand for COA determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sonnier v. Johnson, 161 F.3d 941 (5th Cir.1998) (lack of district COA ruling deprives court of jurisdiction)
- Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384 (5th Cir.1998) (jurisdictional impact of no COA ruling)
- Brewer v. Quarterman, 475 F.3d 253 (5th Cir.2006) (district court must deny COA before appeal)
- Muniz v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 43 (5th Cir.1997) (district court must decide COA first)
- Sonnier v. Johnson, 161 F.3d 941 (5th Cir.1998) (jurisdictional rule tied to Rule 22)
- Leal Garcia v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 214 (5th Cir.2009) (Medellin/Avena substantive preclusion)
- Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (U.S. 2008) (ICJ/Presidential letters not binding domestic law to compel review)
- Resendiz v. Quarterman, 454 F.3d 456 (5th Cir.2006) (COA requirement for unauthorized successive petitions)