KIRKSEY v. JONES, 4:15-cv-00444

Petitioner Darryl Kirksey filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction; the matter was referred to a magistrate judge.
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation concluding the petition should be denied; the district court extended Kirksey’s deadline to object but no objections were filed.
The report relied in part on Eleventh Circuit authority regarding whether a federal court may “look through” an unexplained state appellate decision to a lower court’s reasoned decision; the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Wilson v. Sellers on that issue.
The district court concluded that even if the Supreme Court resolves Wilson differently, any change would not alter the result in Kirksey’s case.
The court denied Kirksey’s petition with prejudice, denied a certificate of appealability (COA), and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith (denying in forma pauperis status absent a COA).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the § 2254 petition merits relief on the merits	Kirksey contended his conviction/ proceedings involved constitutional error warranting federal habeas relief	State (Respondent Jones) argued the claims lack merit or are procedurally defaulted and the state-court rulings are entitled to deference	Court accepted magistrate judge’s R&R and denied the petition with prejudice
Whether a federal court may “look through” an unexplained state appellate decision to a lower court’s reasoned decision	Kirksey relied on precedent permitting look-through to evaluate state-court adjudication on the merits	Respondent relied on Eleventh Circuit precedent precluding look-through (Wilson v. Warden decision)	Court noted Supreme Court had granted certiorari in Wilson but found any contrary future ruling would not change this case’s outcome
Whether a certificate of appealability should issue	Kirksey argued reasonable jurists could debate the merits or the procedural rulings	Respondent argued Kirksey failed to make the substantial showing required for a COA	COA denied because Kirksey did not make the required substantial showing
Whether appeal may proceed in forma pauperis	Kirksey would proceed without fees if COA issued	Respondent opposed IFP absent COA; court must certify whether appeal is in good faith	Court certified any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status absent COA

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (establishes standard for substantial showing required for a COA)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (explains COA standards when dismissal rests on procedural grounds)
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (discusses standards for showing denial of constitutional rights warranting relief)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (sets out standards applicable to § 2254 petitions on the merits)
Wilson v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 834 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. decision regarding whether federal courts may "look through" unexplained state appellate decisions)