United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 5, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30607
USDC No. 3:03-CV-02284
HUBERT D. WALKER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
--------------------
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Hubert D. Walker (“Walker”), Louisiana prisoner # 419324,
seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the
district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as
time-barred. Walker filed the petition to challenge his life
sentence for second degree murder. Walker argues that his
petition is not time-barred because he complied with all of
Louisiana’s procedural requirements regarding the filing of his
state habeas pleadings.
To obtain a COA, Walker must make a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). When a district
O R D E R
No. 04-30607
-2-
court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds, “a COA
should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a
valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district
court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at
484.
Walker has shown that jurists of reason would debate the
correctness of the district court’s determination that he failed
to comply with Louisiana’s procedural requirements regarding the
filing of his state habeas pleadings, specifically the filing of
his writ application to the Louisiana Supreme Court. See
Villegas v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 467, 469-70 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1999);
State ex rel. Johnson v. Whitley, 648 So. 2d 909 (La. 1995);
Louisiana Supreme Court Rule X, § 5(a); LA. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.
art. 13 (2002); LA. REV. STAT. ANN. 1:55 (2002). Based on the
materials of record, it is impossible to determine whether
reasonable jurists would debate whether the claims raised by
Walker in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition are valid claims of a
constitutional deprivation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that a
COA be GRANTED as to whether Walker’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition
was timely filed under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act. See Houser v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 560, 562 (5th Cir.
2004). We VACATE the district court’s denial of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 relief and REMAND to the district court for further
O R D E R
No. 04-30607
-3-
proceedings. See Dickinson v. Wainwright, 626 F.2d 1184, 1186
(5th Cir. 1980).
COA GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.