Riojas v. Department of the Army ( 2022 )

Case: 22-50019 Document: 00516402635 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 21, 2022
No. 22-50019
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Paul Anthony Riojas,
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Department of the Army; John E. Whitley, Secretary of the
Army,
Respondents—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:20-CV-1054
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Paul Anthony Riojas appeals the judgment of the district court
dismissing his collateral attack on his court-martial conviction. We affirm.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Case: 22-50019 Document: 00516402635 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2022
No. 22-50019
Riojas pleaded guilty to and was convicted of one specification of
disobeying an order from a superior commissioned officer and one
specification of sexual abuse of a child. United States v. Riojas, 2018 WL
5619958, at *1 (Army Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 26, 2018). He ultimately appealed
the judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (“CAAF”),
which denied his petition for review. United States v. Riojas, 78 M.J. 346, 346
(C.A.A.F. 2019).
Riojas then filed coram nobis petitions with the Army Court of
Criminal Appeals (“ACCA”) and the CAAF, claiming ineffective assistance
of counsel in his initial proceedings. Both summarily denied his petition. The
ACCA wrote in full: “On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary
Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Error Coram Nobis, the petition is
DISMISSED.”
Thereafter, Riojas filed this suit in the district court collaterally
attacking his court-martial conviction on Fifth and Sixth Amendment
grounds. The district court found he failed to state a claim on both grounds:
as to the Fifth Amendment claim, the district court found the military courts
“fully and fairly” considered Riojas’s due process claims on direct appeal.
Then, the district court found the Sixth Amendment claim was fully and
fairly considered by the ACCA when it denied his coram nobis petition. Riojas
appeals only the Sixth Amendment holding, contending that the ACCA did
not fully and fairly consider his ineffective-assistance claim.
We review a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo. Wampler v. Sw. Bell Tel.
Co., 597 F.3d 741, 744 (5th Cir. 2010). When a petition collaterally attacks a
decision by the military court, “it is the limited function of the civil courts to
determine whether the military has given fair consideration” to the claims
2
Case: 22-50019 Document: 00516402635 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/21/2022
No. 22-50019
raised in that collateral attack. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 144 (1953). 1 In
Fletcher, we explained that even a summary disposition by a military court
constitutes “full and fair consideration” provided that the petitioner “fully
briefed and argued these claims before the ACCA.” Fletcher, 578 F.3d at 278.
Fletcher resolves this appeal. Like the petitioner in Fletcher, Riojas fails
to identify how his Sixth Amendment claim was not fully briefed or
considered by the ACCA. He presented several pages of briefing to the
ACCA on his ineffective-assistance claim in his coram nobis petition. The
ACCA considered the petition, but denied it. Therefore, he was afforded
“full and fair review,” id. at 278-79, and the district court did not err when it
dismissed his claim.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
1
To the extent Riojas argues the ACCA abused its discretion when it engaged in a
summary disposition “by ignoring relevant facts and law in Riojas’s case,” we note that
exceeds our limited review. See Fletcher v. Outlaw, 578 F.3d 274, 278 (5th Cir. 2009) (“[I]t
appears that [petitioner] is arguing that he failed to receive full and fair consideration
because the military courts were wrong on the merits of his habeas claim. This is not
sufficient to show a lack of full and fair review.”).
3