No. 99-40811
- 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40811
Summary Calendar
JEHAAD A.M.E. SAAHIR,
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
USDC No. 1:98-CV-1660
--------------------
May 5, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jehaad A.M.E. Saahir, Texas prisoner # 291515, seeks a
certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his
application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Saahir’s motion for appointment of counsel is
DENIED. Saahir argues that the district court erred in failing
to address four grounds of error raised in his application. He
also argues that the district court erred in finding that he had
not alleged that he was eligible for mandatory supervision.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-40811
- 2 -
Saahir is correct on both counts. The district court failed
to address the first four claims raised by Saahir challenging
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 498.005 (West 1998) and the TDCJ policy
adopted pursuant to that statute on due process, equal
protection, and ex post facto grounds. Saahir has made a
credible showing that the district court erred. Murphy v.
Johnson, 110 F.3d 10, 11 (5th Cir. 1997). A COA is GRANTED, the
judgment of the district court is VACATED, and this case is
REMANDED for consideration of those claims, including
consideration of whether Saahir should have raised these claims
in one of his earlier § 2254 applications and whether his attempt
to raise them in this application runs afoul of the prohibition
against filing successive § 2254 applications contained in the
AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
Saahir alleged that he was eligible for mandatory
supervision in the district court in the supplemental petition
filed in response to questions posed by the magistrate judge. He
alleged that he had served 20 calendar years and that if his good
time was restored he would be eligible for mandatory supervision.
Saahir has made a credible showing that the district court erred
in dismissing his application because he had not stated whether
he was eligible for mandatory supervision. A COA is GRANTED on
this issue also, the judgment of the district court is VACATED,
and this case is REMANDED for the district court to consider the
merits of Saahir’s claim that he was deprived of due process at
his disciplinary proceedings.
GRANT COA, VACATE AND REMAND.