FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T NOV 5, 20 10 J OHN LEY CLERK [P UB L I SH] IN TH E UNIT ED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVE NTH CI RCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 53 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ TROY ANTHO NY DAVIS, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us W ILLIAM TERRY, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ BEFORE: DUBINA, Chi ef J ud ge , BARKETT andMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es . BY THE COURT: Pet it io ne r, Troy Anth on y Davi s, fi le d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity (“ COA), wit h t hi s co urt fo ll owi ng th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f hi s re qu es t fo r a COA. Pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 3( c), a h ab eas pe ti ti on er m ay no t ap pe al fro m

a di st ric tco urt’s ad ve rs e ru li ng un le ss a ci rcu itjus ti ce o r jud ge is su es a COA. A cou rt wi ll

is su e a COA “ on ly if th e ap pl ic an t h as m ad e a s ub st an ti al sh owi ng of t he de ni al of a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 3( c)(2 ); se e a ls o Sla ck v. McDa ni el , 52 9 U.S. 47 3, 4 83 –8 4, 1 20 S. Ct. 1 59 5, 1 60 3– 04 (20 00 ). To s at is fy th is st an da rd , a pe ti ti on er m

us t s ho w th atitis de ba tabl e am on g re as on ab le juri st s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt’s as se ss m en t o f th e cl ai m was wro ng . Sl ac k , 52 9 U.S. at48 4, 1 20 S. Ct. at 16 04 . Bec au se of t he un us ua l p ro cedur al po stur e o f th is cas e, we se t fo rth th e pr oc edur al hi st ory

of t hi s ca se in de ta il . In 1 99 1, a Geo rg iajury co nv ic te d Dav is of m ur de r, ob stru ct io n o f a l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer, t wo co un ts of a gg rav at ed as saul t an d p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm du rin g t he co m

m is si on of afel on y . The t ria l co urt s en te nc edDavi s t o d eat h fo r th e m ur de r co nv ic ti on . The Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iaaffi rm edDavi s’s co nv ic ti on s an d d eat h s en te nc e. Dav is v. St at e , 42 6 S.E.2d84 4 (Ga . 19 93 ). The Un it edSta te s Supr em e Co urt d en ie d Dav is ’s pet it io n fo r writof c ert io rari . Dav is v. Geor gi a , 51 0 U.S. 9 50 , 11 4 S . Ct. 3 96 (19 93 ). Subs eque nt ly, in 19 94 , Davi s fi le d ape ti ti on forwritof h ab eas co rp us in Geor gi a Supe rio r Co urt, wh ic h t he co urt d en ie d. Th e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt af firm edth e de ni al of Da vi s’s h ab eas pe ti ti on , Dav is v. Tu rp in , 53 9 S .E.2d12 9 (Ga . 20 00 ), an d

2th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt d en ie d h is pe ti ti on forwritof c ert io rari , Dav is v.

Tu rp in , 53 4 U.S. 8 42 , 12 2 S . Ct. 1 00 (20 01 ). In20 01 , Davi s fi le d ape ti ti on forwritof h ab eas co rp us pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 i n fe de ral di stric t co urt. The di st ric t co urt d en ie d h is pe ti ti on for rel ie f, an d t hi s co urt af

firm ed . Dav is v. Ter ry , 46 5 F .3d12 49 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ), cer t. d en ie d , 55 1 U.S. 1 14 5 (2 00 7) . In 2 00 8, Dav is fil edanap pl ic at io n wi th th is co urt fo r le av e to fil e a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve habe as co rp us pe ti ti on , andth is co urt de ni edhi s ap pl ic at io n. In re Da vis , 56 5 F .3d81 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . In t ha t op in io n, we s pe ci fic al ly not edth atDavi s co ul d “ pe ti ti on th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt t o h ear h is cla im un de r it s o rig in al juri sd ic ti on .” Id. at 8 26 . Dav is fol lo wedou r su gg es ti on an d fi le d a n o rig in al habe as co rp us pe ti ti on in th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt, ci ti ng 28 U.S.C. §§ 22 41 , 22 54 (a), 1 65 1( a), an d Art ic le III o f th e U.S. Co ns ti tu ti on , as p ro vi di ng th e b as is forth e Supr em e Co urt’s jur is di ct io n. Up on co ns id erat io n, t he Supr em e Co urt o rd eredth at : The pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us is tra ns ferr edto th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a fo r he ari ng an d d et erm in at io n. Th e Dis tri ctCo urt s ho ul d re cei ve tes ti m on y an d m ak e fi nd in gs of f

actas t o wh et he r ev id en ce t ha t co ul d n otha ve be en ob ta in edat t he ti m e o f tr ia l cl earl y est ab li sh es pe ti ti on er’s i nn oc en ce. In re Da vis , __

_ U.S. _

__ , 13 0 S . Ct. 1 , 1 (2 00 9) .

3Upo n re cei ptof t he ord er fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt, t he di st ric t co urt co nduc te d a n e vi de nt iary he ari ng to de te rm in e whe th er Dav is co ul d e st ab li sh hi s i nn oc en ce o f th e m

ur de r co nv ic ti on . In i ts ord er o f Aug us t 2 4, 2 01 0, t he di st ric t co urt d en ie d Dav is rel ie f, co nc lu di ng th atDavi s fa il edto sh ow ac tu al in no cen ce o f hi s m

ur de r co nv ic ti on . In re Da vis , No. CV4 09 – 1 30 , 20 10 W L 33 85 08 1, * 1, 6 1 (S . D. Ga. Aug. 2 4, 2 01 0) . The d is tri ctco urt, i n afoo tn ot e, qu es ti on edth e juri sd ic ti on al effe ct s, p art ic ul arl y wit h re sp ectto ap pe al , of t he Supr em e Co urt’s t ran sf

er an d s ug ge st edth atap pe al of i ts ord er wo ul d b e d ire ct ly to th e Supr em e Co urt. Id. at * 1 n .1. Dav is , als o u nc ert ai n abo uthi s av en ue of ap pe al , fil edanap pe al wit h t hi s co urt fr om th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g b ecau se he co nc lu de d t ha t a d ire ctap pe al to th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt was no t ex pl ic it ly aut ho riz edby Sup rem e Co urt Ru le , fed eral st atut e, orSupr em e Co urt pr eced en t. Ho wev er, i n a n abu nd an ce o f cau ti on , Davi s al so fil eda di rectap pe al to th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt. As o f th is da te , th e Supr em e Co urt, n orth is co urt, h av e ru le d o n Dav is ’s res pe ct iv e ap pe al s. Now Dav is ha s fi le d areque stforCOA inth is co urt. In it s d en ia l o f Dav is ’s reque stfor

a COA, th e d is tri ctco urt ex pr es se d i ts do ub t tha t t hi s co urt h ad juri sd ic ti on to he ar an ap pe al fro m it s fi nd in g t ha t Dav is di d n otest ab li sh hi s in no cen ce o f th e m

ur de r co nv ic ti on . In re T ro y Antho ny Davis , No. CV4 09 – 1 30 4(S. D. Ga. Oct. 8 , 20 10 ). The d is tri ctco urt em ph as iz edth atth e Supr em e Co urt ex erci se d i ts or ig in al

juri sd ic ti on when ittra ns ferr edth e cas e to th e d is tri ctco urt. The di st ric t co urt re as on edth atitwas c le ar t ha t t he Supr em e Co urt was ex erci si ng it s o rig in al juri sd ic ti on be cau se if i t wer e o pe rat in g wi th in th e co nf in es of i ts ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on , “ itwou ldha ve be en un ab le to en te rta in th e p et it io n b ecau se [Dav is ] ha d n otob ta in edlea ve to fil e a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on .” Dis t. Co urt Ord er at2, ci ti ng Felk

er v. Tu rp in , 51 8 U.S. 6 51 , 66 1, 1 16 S. Ct. 2 33 3, 2 33 8– 39 (1 99 6) . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s re as on in g. Dav is co ul d o nl y bri ng hi s cl ai m un de r th e Supr em e Co urt’s o rig in al juri sd ic ti on be cau se he ha d e xh au st ed hi s o th er av en ue s o f rel ie f. The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d h is fir stfed eral habe as pe ti ti on , th is co urt af

firm edon ap pe al , andth e Supr em e Co urt d en ie d re vi ew. Dav is was p ro hi bi te d fr om fil in g asec on d o r su cces si ve habe as pe ti ti on ab se ntan or de r fro m

th is co urt au th or iz in g s uc h afil in g. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b ). W e d en ie d hi s re qu es t fo r le av e to fil e a s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on , andth ere was no furth er re vi ew au th or iz edby law. 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( b) (3 )(E). The refo re, Dav is fil eda habe as pe ti ti on pu rs ua ntto th e Supr em e Co urt’s or ig in al juri sd ic ti on . If th is co urt gr an te d Dav is ’s reque stfor a COA an d re vi ewedth e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er atth is jun ctur e, as Davi s re qu es ts , we wou ldeffec ti ve ly be res to rin g h is rem ed ie s i n 5fed eral co urt, i n c om pl et e co nt rad ic ti on to th e ex pr es s i nt en t o f Co ng res s. In effe ct , we wou ldbe nu ll ifyin g o urpre vi ou s d eci si on de nyin g Dav is lea ve to fil e a su cces si ve habe as pe ti ti on . W e d ecl in e to do th at . Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s t he ap pe al an d d en y hi s re qu es t fo r a COA. App eal is DISMIS SED; Re qu es t fo r COA is DENIED.

6BARKETT, Circ ui t J ud ge , sp eci al ly con cu rri ng :

I ag ree t ha t Dav is ’s app li cat io n fo r a cer ti fic at e o f ap pe al ab il it y sh ou ldbe de ni edon th e g ro un d t ha t h is ap pe al fro m th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er l ie s i n t he Supr em e Co urt, n otth is Co urt, as Davi s fi le d a n o rig in al habe as pe ti ti on in th e Supr em e Co urt. I wri te sep arat el y on ly to cl ari fy

th atm y ag reem en t o n t hi s p oi nt in no way de tra ct s fr om

m y earl ie r op in io n d is se nt in g fr om th is Co urt’s d en ia l o f Dav is ’s app li cat io n t o fi le a se co ndor s uc ces si ve habe as pe ti ti on . In re Davi s, 5 65 F.3 d 8 10 , 82 7- 31 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (Ba rk et t, J ., di ss en ti ng ). In t ha t o pi ni on , I ex pr es se d t he vi ew th atAEDPA’ s l im it at io ns on fil in g asec on d o r su cces si ve habe as pe ti ti on “ can no t p os si bl y be ap pl ie d wh en to do so wou ldoff en d t he Co ns ti tu ti on an d t he fun da m en ta l co nc ep t o f jus ti ce t ha t an in no cen t m an sh ou ld no t b e ex ecu te d.” Id. at82 7.

7