Donn Martin v. William Stephens, Director , 563 F. App'x 329 ( 2014 )

Case: 12-10628 Document: 00512599117 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 12-10628 April 16, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
DONN DEVERAL MARTIN, Clerk
Petitioner–Appellant
v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent–Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-CV-447
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before JONES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donn Deveral Martin, Texas prisoner # 1454022, seeks a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 application for federal habeas corpus relief. The district court dismissed
Martin’s petition for habeas relief on procedural grounds. The district court
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 12-10628 Document: 00512599117 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2014
No. 12-10628
adopted the magistrate judge’s conclusion that because Martin’s convictions
became final on August 11, 2009, Martin’s “petition, deemed filed on June 23,
2011, is untimely” under the one-year statute of limitations prescribed in 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d). The district court did not decide or consider the merits of
Martin’s constitutional claims.
We then denied Martin’s motion for a COA, noting that Martin had not
shown “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
(2000).
The Supreme Court vacated judgment on December 6, 2013, and
remanded this case for reconsideration in light of its opinion in McQuiggin v.
Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013). There, the Supreme Court held, “actual
innocence, if proved, serves as a gateway through which a petitioner may pass
[if] the impediment is . . . expiration of the statute of limitations.” Id. at 1928.
In light of Perkins, this Court finds “that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Moreover, because the district court understandably
focused on the statute-of-limitations issue, we do not have an adequate record
on the merits to determine whether Martin’s actual-innocence claim was
meritless. See Houser v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly,
we GRANT the COA and REMAND this case for reconsideration of Martin’s
actual-innocence claim in light of Perkins. As to Martin’s other claims, we
DENY Martin’s COA. We express no opinion on the ultimate disposition of
Martin’s § 2254 petition.
2