Case: 17-20008 Document: 00514219913 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 17-20008 FILED
November 1, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
MATTHEW JAMES LEACHMAN, Clerk
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CV-3202
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Matthew James Leachman, Texas prisoner # 903617 / Harris County
# 01525039, was convicted of indecency with a child. He seeks a certificate of
appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for
stay and abeyance of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding so that he could exhaust
his state court remedies. Leachman contends that the district court erred by
denying his motion, arguing that he had good cause warranting a stay, i.e., his
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-20008 Document: 00514219913 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2017
No. 17-20008
reasonable confusion regarding whether the sole claim raised in his state
habeas application was exhausted pursuant to the requirements set forth in
Texas Government Code § 501.0081 and thus whether the application was
properly filed for tolling purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2).
A district court should grant a stay if it determines that the prisoner has
shown good cause warranting a stay, that the prisoner has raised meritorious
issues, and that the prisoner has not engaged in intentionally dilatory tactics.
Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005). Leachman has not satisfied this
standard; at the very least, he has failed to show good cause excusing his
failure to exhaust his state remedies. Thus, he has not established that the
district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a stay. See id. at
278.
The district court’s denial of the motion for stay and abeyance is
AFFIRMED. Leachman’s motion for a COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY
as no COA is required to review the district court’s ruling on this non-merits
issue. See Young v. Stephens, 795 F.3d 484, 494 (5th Cir. 2015).
2