Else v. Johnson ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    _____________________
    No. 96-40404
    _____________________
    PAUL ELSE,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
    TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
    JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    _______________________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court for
    the Eastern District of Texas
    _______________________________________________________
    February 20, 1997
    ON RECONSIDERATION
    Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, REAVLEY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    The   opinion   previously    entered   in   this   case   is   hereby
    withdrawn and replaced with the following.           The district court
    granted a certificate of probable cause for the appeal of the
    denial of habeas relief pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    .       Several days
    prior to this grant, a new law became effective: the Antiterrorism
    and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 104-
    132, 
    110 Stat. 1214
     (1996).       We hold that the district court had
    the authority to issue a certificate of appealability under the
    AEDPA amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) and
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c), and that the certificate meets the threshold
    requirements of appealability. On the merits we find no error, and
    affirm.
    Prior to April 24, 1996, the date the AEDPA became effective,
    Rule 22(b) and 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
     required the issuance of a
    certificate of probable cause by a district or circuit judge prior
    to processing the appeal by an applicant for habeas arising from
    state detention. Rule 22(b), as revised by the AEDPA, now requires
    the issuance of a certificate of appealability by a “district or
    circuit judge” pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c) before § 2254
    appeals will be processed.        AEDPA, § 103 (codified at FED.R.APP.P.
    22(b) (Supp.1996)).     The AEDPA revised 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
     so as to
    require the    issuance     of    a    certificate     of   appealability   by a
    “circuit justice or judge” before an appeal may be taken from the
    final order in a proceeding directed at either state or federal
    detention.    AEDPA, § 102 (codified at 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(Supp.
    1996)).
    The first question is whether, under the AEDPA amendments, the
    district   courts    have   the       authority   to   issue   certificates   of
    appealability for appeals from habeas actions arising from state
    detention.    While Rule 22(b) states that district judges do have
    this authority, the language of § 2253 does not expressly name
    “district”    judges   as    those       who   may     issue   certificates   of
    appealability.      If there is any inconsistency, we would construe
    the express grant of authority to district courts as compelling,
    and we hold that district courts retain the authority to issue
    2
    certificates of appealability for § 2254 petitions under the
    AEDPA.1
    The question remains whether the certificate of probable cause
    issued by the district court meets the threshold requirements of
    appealability.    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
     now requires a district court
    issuing a certificate of appealability to indicate which specific
    issue or issues present a substantial showing by the petitioner of
    the denial of a constitutional right.      AEDPA, § 102 (codified at 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(3)(Supp. 1996)).         In the present case, only one
    issue was presented in Else’s habeas petition.             In granting a
    certificate of probable cause, the district court clearly certified
    this sole issue for appeal.       We find that this meets the threshold
    requirement of § 2253(c)(3).
    We have previously held that the standard for issuance of a
    certificate of appealability pursuant to the AEDPA is the same as
    was   required   formerly   for   a   certificate   of   probable    cause.
    Drinkard v. Johnson, 
    97 F.3d 751
    , 756 (5th Cir. 1996).              We will
    therefore treat the district court’s certificate of probable cause
    as a certificate of appealability and address the merits of Else’s
    claim.
    Else’s complaint is that the Texas Parole Board violated his
    due process rights by considering a dismissed criminal charge
    against him during his parole revocation hearing.           The district
    1
    The Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc recently held that
    under the AEDPA amendment of § 2253, district court judges have the
    authority to issue certificates of appealability for §§ 2254 and
    2255 petitions. Hunter v. United States, 
    101 F.3d 1565
    , 1583-84
    (11th Cir. 1996)(en banc).
    3
    court correctly rules that no constitutional claim was raised. See
    Villarreal v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 
    985 F.2d 835
    , 839 (5th Cir.
    1993).
    AFFIRMED.
    4