The petition for rehearing en banc fails to identify a ground warranting review by the en banc court. Accordingly, the petition is DENIED. We briefly address the arguments presented in the petition, as well as the ethical concerns posed by counsels behavior in this litigation.
* * *
Appellant Matthew Johnson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and separately moved to recuse the district judge to whom that petition was assigned. On appeal, we denied Johnsons motion for a certificate of appealability, explaining that each of his arguments had already been considered and rejected by binding precedent. For that reason, reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the district courts denial of post-conviction habeas relief. Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115, 137 S.Ct. 759, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).
We also affirmed the district courts denial of Johnsons motion to recuse. Johnson sought recusal on two bases. First, because the district court ordered counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for raising frivolous arguments. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b); Mod. R. Prof. Cond. 3.1. And indeed, each of Johnsons arguments—that the “future dangerousness” element of the State of Texass capital sentencing statute is unconstitutionally vague; that jury predictions of future dangerousness are inherently unreliable; that Johnsons non-violent behavior while incarcerated retroactively disproves the jurys finding that he posed a future threat to society; and that the Constitution requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mitigating circumstances do not warrant a lifes incarceration rather than a capital sentence—are foreclosed by multiple, binding precedents.
1
To be sure, ethical rules and rules of civil procedure allow counsel to advocate for a modification in the law. But when doing so, counsel is unquestionably obligated to recognize contrary authority. See Mod. R. Prof. Cond. 3.3(a)(2) (“A lawyer shall not knowingly ․ fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.”); Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof. Cond. 3.03(a)(2) (same).
Johnsons attorneys failed to do so. Both before the district court and on appeal, counsel failed to cite any of the binding precedents listed above. Nor could they reasonable argue that there were not aware of these precedents. Indeed, the same lawyers raised the exact same arguments just three years ago in Buntion v. Lumpkin. The district court was well within its discretion to consider whether counsels lack of candor warranted sanctions.
The second basis Johnson gave for recusal was the district courts initial instruction that he file his habeas petition by May 1, 2020. A one-year statute of limitations applies to federal post-conviction habeas petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The state court denied Johnsons state habeas petition on September 11, 2019, so the statute required that he file his federal petition by no later than September 11, 2020. The district court ultimately granted Johnsons motion to extend his deadline to file his petition.
Johnson understood the initial case-management order as violating his alleged right to wait until September 11, 2020 to file his habeas petition, and construed the courts order as evidence of bias against him. We rejected the argument that the district courts order demonstrated bias or prejudice, explaining that the courts order would not cause a reasonable person to “harbor doubts about the district courts impartiality.” Trevino v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 173, 178 (5th Cir. 1999).
Johnson now petitions for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel opinion stands for the proposition that a district court has power to shorten the one-year statute of limitations. The opinion stands for no such thing. It holds only that the district courts case-management order is not a ground for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Especially probative for that holding is the fact that the district court ultimately granted Johnson the extension he sought. Our conclusion that the district court was not required to recuse says nothing about the hypothetical issue of whether a district court would commit legal error if it did order a post-conviction habeas petitioner to file his petition before the deadline provided by the statute of limitations.
Especially given that counsel are already testing the limits of their duties of good faith and candor, we would have expected them to show better judgment in discerning whether to file a petition for rehearing en banc—especially one that badly misstates the opinions conclusion. A good-faith reading of the courts opinion clearly shows that it does not hold what counsel says it holds. Petitions for rehearing en banc are an “extraordinary procedure” that should be used only to bring the courts attention to an issue of “exceptional public importance” or one that “directly conflicts” with on-point Supreme Court or prior Fifth Circuit precedent. 5th Cir. R. 35 I.O.P. Given the deficiencies discussed above, Johnsons petition does not rise to that level. Counsel are strongly encouraged to confine future arguments to the limits imposed by applicable ethical rules.
Treating the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing (5th Cir. R. 35 I.O.P.), the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. Because no member of the panel or judge in regular active service requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc (Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 5th Cir. R. 35), the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. See Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967, 974, 114 S.Ct. 2630, 129 L.Ed.2d 750 (1994) (holding that the States future dangerousness element is not unconstitutionally vague) (quoting Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 274–76, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976)); Woods v. Johnson, 75 F.3d 1017, 1034 (5th Cir. 1996) (same); Buntion v. Lumpkin, 982 F.3d 945, 948–50 (5th Cir. 2020) (concluding that developments in social science have not altered the proposition that a jury can accurately determine future dangerousness); id. at 950–51 (explaining that a prisoners non-violent conduct after conviction does not undermine the jurys determination that he poses a future threat of danger); Rowell v. Dretke, 398 F.3d 370, 378 (5th Cir. 2005) (upholding the constitutionality of not requiring the State to disprove mitigation beyond a reasonable doubt); Sprouse v. Stephens, 748 F.3d 609, 622 (5th Cir. 2014) (same); Scheanette v. Quarterman, 482 F.3d 815, 828 (5th Cir. 2007) (same).
Per Curiam: