IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30728

Summary Calendar

LUCAS J. RODDY,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:10-CV-800

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lucas J. Roddy, Louisiana prisoner # 458846, has applied for a certificate

of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal, on procedural

grounds, of claims raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Roddy was convicted

by a jury of second degree murder and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment.

A COA may be issued only if the applicant “has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “The COA determination under § 2253(c)

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 23, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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: 11-30728 Document: 00511831084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2012
No. 11-30728

requires an overview of the claims in the habeas petition and a general

assessment of their merits.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). 

When the district court’s denial of relief is based upon procedural grounds

without analysis of the underlying constitutional claims, “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.

Roddy does not challenge the district court’s dismissal, as unexhausted,

of his claim regarding the denial of DNA testing of clothing allegedly worn by the

perpetrator. Failure to identify an error in the district court’s analysis has the

same effect as not appealing a judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, a COA is DENIED

as to the district court’s dismissal of Roddy’s claim regarding the denial of DNA

testing.

Roddy argues that the district court erred in dismissing his remaining

claims as time barred. Specifically, he asserts that the district court erroneously

determined that his state post-conviction relief application ceased to be properly

filed because he did not timely file a writ application in the Louisiana Supreme

Court. Roddy points to a prison mail request form, supplemented into the record

by order of the magistrate judge, that purports to show that on November 10,

2009, he submitted for mailing a writ application to the Louisiana Supreme

Court. He asserts that his writ application was timely filed given operation of

the prison mailbox rule, see Stoot v. Cain, 570 F.3d 669, 671 (5th Cir. 2009), and

that therefore he was entitled to statutory tolling from the date that he filed his

application for state post-conviction relief until November 5, 2010, when the

Louisiana Supreme Court denied his writ application. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(2). He maintains that his § 2254 petition, filed on November 22, 2010,

was not untimely.

2

Case: 11-30728 Document: 00511831084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/23/2012
No. 11-30728

Roddy has shown that jurists of reason would debate the correctness of the

district court’s procedural ruling. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Roddy’s claims of

ineffective assistance of trial counsel, violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.

83 (1963), denial of the right to testify, and prejudice resulting from the

cumulative effect of the alleged violations of his rights, are claims of

constitutional deprivations. We express no view on the resolution of the above

claims and observe only that Roddy’s has made a sufficient showing to warrant

the grant of a COA. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 648-50 (2012);

Houser v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, a COA is

GRANTED as to the district court’s dismissal of these claims as time barred. 

The district court must resolve the factual question of whether Roddy timely

placed his writ application in the prison mail system and further briefing on this

issue before this court would not be helpful; therefore, the case should be

remanded without further proceedings before this court at this time. See

Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998) (stating that, in

appropriate cases, this court may grant COA, vacate judgment, and remand

without requiring further briefing). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the

judgment is VACATED IN PART, and this case is REMANDED IN PART to the

district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

3

Case: 11-30728 Document: 00511831084 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/23/2012