Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-30485/USCOURTS-ca5-19-30485-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chester Brown
Appellant
Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30485

Summary Calendar

CHESTER BROWN,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:19-CV-9121

Before SMITH, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Chester Brown, Louisiana prisoner # 97411, was convicted of armed 

robbery and second-degree murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 

The district court dismissed Brown’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application with 

prejudice and denied his motion to stay the proceedings pending the 

completion of his state post-conviction proceedings. Brown now has filed 

* 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

April 8, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-30485 Document: 00515375812 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2020
No. 19-30485

2

motions for a certificate of appealability (COA) and for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.

In his motion for a COA, Brown argues that the district court erred in 

dismissing his claim that he has new evidence, consisting of an affidavit from 

one of his original accusers now stating that Brown did not take any part in 

the crimes, which shows he is actually innocent. To obtain a COA, Brown must 

make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Brown “satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his 

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are 

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). However, a freestanding claim of actual innocence 

does not state an independently cognizable ground for § 2254 relief. See Kinsel 

v. Cain, 647 F.3d 265, 270 n.20 (5th Cir. 2011). Brown does not raise any other 

claim of constitutional error. Therefore, he has not shown that reasonable 

jurists would debate the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims, 

and his motion for a COA is DENIED. See Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327. In light 

of this determination, his motion for leave to proceed IFP also is DENIED.

Brown also challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to stay his 

§ 2254 proceedings. “A COA is not required to review the district court’s ruling 

on a non-merits issue such as a stay.” Young v. Stephens, 795 F.3d 484, 494 

(5th Cir. 2015). Because he has not shown he will raise a meritorious issue, he 

has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion by denying his 

motion to stay the proceedings. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 

(2005). The district court’s denial of Brown’s motion to stay his § 2254

proceedings is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-30485 Document: 00515375812 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2020