Victor Black v. Lorie Davis, Director, 902 F.3d 541

Background

Victor J. Black, a Texas inmate, filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition alleging trial counsel was racially biased, had conflicts of interest, and rendered ineffective assistance. He cited Strickland and Cuyler but not Cronic.
The magistrate judge issued reports recommending denial; the district court adopted them in January 2016, denied relief, and issued a blanket denial of a certificate of appealability (COA).
Black appealed; while the appeal was pending he sought relief in district court via a filing the court treated as a successive § 2254 and transferred to the Fifth Circuit.
A motions judge in the Fifth Circuit denied COA on seven claims but granted a COA on two novel issues: (1) whether Black’s claim was governed by Cronic and (2) whether an evidentiary hearing was required on that contention.
The Fifth Circuit merits panel considered whether the circuit properly granted a COA on issues that were not specifically presented to or denied by the district court and whether Black had in fact raised a Cronic claim below.
The panel held the circuit lacked jurisdiction to grant a COA on issues not previously denied by the district court and concluded Black had not sufficiently presented a Cronic claim in district court; it vacated the COA and dismissed the appeal without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Fifth Circuit could grant a COA on issues not specifically presented to or denied by the district court	Black argued he made a general request for a COA and his pro se filings should be liberally construed to include the Cronic issues	State argued the circuit lacked jurisdiction because Black did not request a COA on those specific issues in district court	The court held the circuit may not grant a COA on issues the district court never considered or denied; such grants are beyond the court of appeals' jurisdiction
Whether the district court’s blanket COA denial should be treated as covering all issues in the petition	Black contended the district court’s general denial encompassed all claims	State contended the district court’s general denial did not authorize a circuit grant on unpresented issues	The court held a blanket denial can be treated as denying COA for issues presented in the petition, but only if the issue was actually presented below
Whether Black’s filings presented a Cronic claim (constructive denial of counsel) to the district court	Black argued his allegations of counsel doing nothing, of racial threats, and of conflicts sufficed—when liberally construed—to raise a Cronic claim	State argued Black only pleaded ineffective assistance under Strickland/Cuyler, not a constructive denial under Cronic	The court held Black’s pleadings alleged bad lawyering (Strickland/Cuyler) but did not sufficiently raise a Cronic claim; conclusory statements were inadequate
Remedy for the jurisdictional defect	Black sought review on the Cronic issues and an evidentiary hearing	State sought dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction	The court vacated the COA granted by the motions judge and dismissed the appeal without prejudice for lack of appellate jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (constructive denial of counsel claims presume prejudice and differ qualitatively from Strickland)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (conflict-of-interest claims may presume prejudice if actual conflict adversely affected performance)
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (discussed in concurrence regarding the district-court-first rule’s characterization)
Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384 (5th Cir.) (holding lack of district-court COA ruling deprives circuit of jurisdiction)
Brewer v. Quarterman, 475 F.3d 253 (5th Cir.) (circuit may not grant COA on issues not denied by district court)