Charles Mitchell, II v. Lorie Davis, Director, 669 F. App'x 284

Petitioner Charles Hensley Mitchell, II, a Texas prisoner, sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his aggravated-assault-with-a-deadly-weapon conviction.
The district court denied Mitchell’s § 2254 petition on the merits and denied a certificate of appealability (COA) for those rulings.
Mitchell also sought (1) a COA to appeal the district court’s postjudgment denial of an evidentiary hearing and (2) a COA to appeal the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.
The district court did not explicitly rule on whether a COA was required for the postjudgment rulings; the Fifth Circuit considered whether to remand for that determination or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The Fifth Circuit concluded Mitchell failed to make the requisite substantial showing on his prosecutorial-misconduct and ineffective-appellate-counsel claims, waived his ineffective-trial-counsel claims by inadequate briefing, and that portions of his Rule 59(e) motion were an unauthorized successive petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
COA for prosecutorial-misconduct and ineffective appellate counsel claims	Mitchell contends these claims raise debatable constitutional errors warranting appeal	District court found the claims meritless; no substantial showing of constitutional error	COA denied — reasonable jurists would not find the district court’s assessment debatable
Procedural default of due-process/self-defense jury-instruction claim	Mitchell argues the claim was not procedurally defaulted and merits review	District court ruled the claim procedurally defaulted	Court held Mitchell failed to show reasonable jurists would debate the procedural ruling
COA to appeal denial of evidentiary hearing (postjudgment)	Mitchell sought an evidentiary hearing and appealed its denial	Respondent argued lack of COA and that appeal is meritless	Fifth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (remand futile); no COA warranted
Rule 59(e) motion to alter/amend judgment — effect and appealability	Mitchell sought Rule 59(e) relief to undo habeas denial and to challenge procedural-default ruling	Respondent argued Rule 59(e) amounted to an unauthorized successive petition as to merits; COA required for procedural-default aspect	Court held the portion attempting to relitigate merits was an unauthorized successive petition; the procedural-default challenge lacked arguable merit and appeal was frivolous; matter dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (U.S. 2003) (standard for making a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right for COA)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000) (when a COA should issue on habeas claims decided on the merits or procedural grounds)
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (distinguishing Rule 60(b) motions from unauthorized successive habeas petitions)
Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884 (5th Cir. 2007) (COA required to appeal denial of Rule 59(e) in a habeas case)
Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291 (5th Cir. 2010) (treatment of postjudgment motions as successive petitions)