Xavier Austin v. Lorie Davis, Director
693 F. App'x 342
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Xavier A. Austin, a Texas inmate, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole.
- Austin filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition and later an amended § 2254 petition.
- The district court dismissed the amended § 2254 petition as time barred and denied Austin's Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration; the district court denied a certificate of appealability (COA) as to the dismissal but did not rule on a COA for the Rule 59(e) denial.
- Austin moved in this Court for a COA to appeal both the dismissal of the amended petition and the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion.
- The Fifth Circuit evaluated whether reasonable jurists could debate the procedural ruling (statutory or equitable tolling) and whether a COA was required for the Rule 59(e) denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a COA should issue for dismissal of amended § 2254 petition as time barred | Austin argued the district court erred in not applying statutory or equitable tolling to his amended petition | District court contended the petition was time barred and tolling was inapplicable | COA denied — jurists would not find it debatable that the district court erred |
| Whether a COA is required to appeal denial of Rule 59(e) motion in a habeas case | Austin sought COA to appeal the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion | Respondent defended denial and noted district court did not rule on COA for Rule 59(e) denial | A COA is required, but Austin waived separate challenge by failing to brief it; appeal as to Rule 59(e) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction/remand futile |
| Whether this Court should remand for the district court to rule on COA for Rule 59(e) denial | Austin implicitly argued appellate review should proceed or district court should have ruled | Court noted remand is unnecessary if futile and wastes resources | Court declined remand — dismissed COA request re: Rule 59(e) as futile |
| Whether procedural default/standards from Slack apply to COA determination | Austin contended the underlying constitutional claim was debatable | Respondent relied on Slack and Miller-El standards for procedural-grant COA review | Applied Slack/Miller-El; standards met for review but petitioner failed to show debatable error on tolling |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for making a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (when COA is required on procedural grounds)
- Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884 (5th Cir. 2007) (COA required to appeal denial of Rule 59(e) in habeas cases)
- United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2000) (remand unnecessary where it would be futile and waste judicial resources)
- Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607 (5th Cir. 1999) (issues not briefed on appeal are waived)