Watson v. Byrd

          ORDER REGARDING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          DAVID BRAMLETTE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This Cause is before the Court on a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal [Doc. 46] and an Application for Certificate of Appealability [Doc. 47');">47] filed by pro se Petitioner Dexter Watson. Having considered the record, Watson's briefing, and applicable statutory and case law, the Court finds as follows:

         I. BACKGROUND

         Watson is serving a life sentence for murder in state custody. He petitioned this Court for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after exhausting state remedies. [Doc. 1]

         Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker recommended that the Court deny Watson habeas relief. [Doc. 31] After reviewing de novo Magistrate Judge Parker's Report and Recommendation, the Court found habeas relief unwarranted, adopted Magistrate Judge Parker's Report and Recommendation, and dismissed Watson's Petition with prejudice. [Docs. 42, 43]

         Watson now asks the Court to (1) certify six issues for appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and (2) permit him to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Certificate of Appealability

         Before Watson can appeal the Court's denial of habeas relief on an issue, he must obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on the issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. p. 22(b); Buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759');">137 S.Ct. 759, 773 (2017).

         The Court will grant a COA on an issue if Watson makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This “substantial showing” requires Watson to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the Court's denial of relief “debatable or wrong, ” or that the issues Watson has presented “deserve encouragement to proceed further.” United States v. Arledge, 3 F.3d 47');">471');">873 F.3d 47');">471, 47');">473 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted).

         The Court decides whether to grant a COA “without full consideration of the factual or legal bases adduced in support of the claims.” Rhoades v. Davis, 852 F.3d 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Buck, 137 S.Ct. at 773); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S.Ct. 1029');">123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003) (“The COA determination . . . requires an overview of the claims in the habeas petition and a general assessment of their merits.”).

         Watson asks the Court for a COA on six issues:

1) “Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Petitioner of murder”;

2) “Whether the jury was instructed on the essential elements of the charge [sic] crime”;

“Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failure to do a thoroughly [sic] pretrial investigation”;

4) “Whether trial counsel was ineffective for rejecting Petitioner [sic] lesser offense instruction of ...