Bruins v. Cain ( 1998 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 97-31026
_______________________
WILLIE BRUINS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN, WARDEN,
LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,
Respondent-Appellee.
_________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
(96-CV-2415)
_________________________________________________
August 7, 1998
Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Willie Bruins appeals the judgment of the
district court denying habeas corpus relief, which Bruins sought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. The district court referred the matter
to the magistrate judge who agreed with Respondent’s assertion that
Bruins is procedurally barred on the basis of an independent and
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR. R.
47.5.4.
adequate state ground,1 but then proceeded to address the merits of
the petition as well. The district court adopted the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and dismissed Bruins’s petition on the
merits rather than on the procedural bar. The district court
issued a certificate of appealability (COA) on three issues, none
of which was procedural bar.
We have reviewed the record and the applicable law as set
forth in the appellate briefs and supplemented by independent
research, and we are satisfied that the district court’s dismissal
of the instant petition should be affirmed. We conclude, however,
that such affirmance should be on the basis of the state court’s
clear and unequivocal dismissal on grounds of procedural bar, which
we hold was an independent and adequate state ground. As such, we
need not and therefore do not reach any of the grounds of merit
covered by the COA.
We stated in Moore v. Roberts that “when a state court
decision rests on a state law ground that is independent of a
federal question and adequate to support the judgment, federal
courts lack jurisdiction to review the merits of the case.”2 It
follows that when a federal court must consider the independent and
adequate state grounds doctrine, the court is required to address
1
Respondent’s procedural bar argument is based on the
provisions of La.C.Civ.P.Ann. art. 930.8 (West 1998), which
required Bruins to assert his claim by October 1, 1991.
2
83 F.3d 699, 701 (5th Cir. 1996).
2
the question of its own jurisdiction. Here, therefore, we are free
to affirm the district court’s dismissal of Bruins’s Section 2254
petition on the basis of the independent and adequate state grounds
doctrine without running afoul of the principle that a court of
appeals has no jurisdiction to consider issues other than those
enumerated in the COA. After all, denial of habeas relief under
the doctrine of independent and adequate state ground is a
determination that we do not have jurisdiction to examine the
merits of the petition for habeas relief.
AFFIRMED.
3