Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20684/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20684-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20684

BRADLEY JARED BARTON,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CV-587

Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bradley Jared Barton, Texas prisoner # 1680744, who stands convicted 

of capital murder, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the 

district court’s order staying and abating his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding until 

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled on his second state habeas petition. 

The district court’s order also granted the respondent’s summary judgment 

motion in part to the extent it argued that Barton’s claims were unexhausted. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20684 Document: 00513730371 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2016
No. 15-20684

2

Barton argues that the district court erred in staying the case pending 

exhaustion and that it should have excused the requirement that he exhaust 

his state court remedies because the state habeas process was ineffective.

Barton’s motion for a COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. See Young 

v. Stephens, 795 F.3d 484, 494 (5th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1453 

(2016). Moreover, because the TCCA has now ruled on Barton’s second state 

habeas petition and the district court is no longer holding the case in abeyance

pending exhaustion, the issue of whether the district court should have stayed 

the case or excused the exhaustion requirement is now moot. See United States 

Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395-96 (1980); Motient Corp. v. 

Dondero, 529 F.3d 532, 537 (5th Cir. 2008). The appeal is therefore 

DISMISSED AS MOOT.

 Case: 15-20684 Document: 00513730371 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2016