GRIZZLE v. LUMPKIN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-07-12No. No. 21-10090

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appeal was dismissed as to the underlying judgment and the first two postjudgment motions due to lack of jurisdiction, and the case was remanded for the district court to decide whether to issue a certificate of appealability regarding the third postjudgment motion.

Ronald Gene Grizzle, Jr., a Texas prisoner, sought a certificate of appealability to challenge a federal district court's denial of his federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and three related postjudgment motions. To obtain a certificate of appealability, a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the petition raises a valid constitutional claim and whether the district court's procedural ruling was correct.

The appellate court found it lacked jurisdiction to review most of Grizzle's claims because his notice of appeal was filed outside the required 30-day window following the district court's denial of the initial petition and the first two postjudgment motions. Additionally, the court could not issue a certificate of appealability regarding the third postjudgment motion because the district court had not yet ruled on whether such a certificate should issue in the first place.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review claims when notice of appeal is filed outside the 30-day deadline
Standard for issuing a certificate of appealability on procedural grounds
Whether an appellate court can issue a certificate of appealability without a district court ruling on the question first

Procedural posture

Grizzle moved for a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis to appeal the district court's denial of his federal habeas petition and three postjudgment motions.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Ronald Gene Grizzle, Jr., Texas prisoner # 01935380, moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district courts denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and his three postjudgment motions. He has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.

A COA may be issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To satisfy this standard when the district court has denied a § 2254 petition on procedural grounds, a petitioner must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

Because Grizzles notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days of the district courts denial of his § 2254 petition or the first two postjudgment motions, we lack jurisdiction to review those rulings. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Moreover, we lack jurisdiction to issue a COA as to the denial of his third postjudgment motion because the district court has not ruled on whether a COA should issue from the denial of that motion. See Black v. Davis, 902 F.3d 541, 545 (5th Cir. 2018).

Based upon the foregoing, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is held in abeyance, the appeal is DISMISSED as to the underlying judgment and the first two postjudgment motions, and the case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to decide in the first instance whether a COA should be issued in connection with its order denying Grizzles third postjudgment motion. See Crutsinger v. Davis, 929 F.3d 259, 266 (5th Cir. 2019). The motion to proceed IFP on appeal is HELD IN ABEYANCE.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.