### REVI SED OCTOBER 7, 2013

I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 11-70018

JEFFERY LEE WOOD, Petitioner-Appellant

v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:01-CV423

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jeffery Lee Wood has filed a motion for a certificate o f appealability (COA) to appeal t h e d istrict c ourt’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application, which asserts that Wood is incompetent to be executed, and that his execution would violate t he E ighth and Fourteenth Amendme nts pursuant to Panetti v. U n i te d S t a t e s C o u rt o f A p p e a l s

F i f th C i r c u i t 

### F I L E D October 4, 2013 Ly le W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 11-70018 Document: 00512399694 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/07/2013No. 11-70018

Quarterman, 551 U.S. 9 30 ( 2007) and Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 3 99 (1986)

. The di s t r i c t c ourt denied Wood’s application a nd denied a COA, finding that Wood s uffered from an a ntisocial personality disorder, but not from a delusional disorder, and ther e f

o r e does not qualify as incompetent for execution under Panetti. Wood’s motion for a COA challenges t h e district c o urt’s c onclusion that he did not suffer from a d elusional disorder. Wood a lso asserts that he was denied

a fair hea r i n g in violation o f the Fourteenth A m endment’s due process clause because the district court erroneously based its credibility a nd factual findings
upon the court’s p ersonal experience with T exas’ death row inmates. Wood contends that as a consequence, he was p recluded from a dversarially testing the evidenc e t hat the judge relied upon and thus a remand and reassignment is warranted. Additionally, Wood maintains that the district court prejudged his claim and retaliated against him by unsealing pleadings and proceedings. To obtain a COA, a prisoner must make “a substantial s h owing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 3 22, 3 36 (2003). If a district court has rejected a prisoner’s constitutional claim on the merits, this court will issue a COA only i f he d e mons t r a t e s that jurists of r e a son could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or could conclude the issues presented are “ad e quate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] p etitioner need no t s h o w t hat an appeal will succeed in o r der to be entitled to a COA. The question is the debatability of the underlying constitutional claim, not t he resolution of the debate.” Cardenas v. Dretke, 405 F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Wood has sufficiently demonstrated that r easonable jurists may disagree

w i t h regard to whether h e was denied a f air hearing as a result of the di s t r i c t court’s improper reliance upon i ts own experience with pro se l i t igants and
2 Case: 11-70018 Document: 00512399694 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/07/2013No. 11-70018

Texas’ d e ath row inmates. “[T]he individual and extrajudicial knowledge on the part of the judge will not dispense with p roof of facts n o t judicially cognizable, and cannot be resorted to for the purpose of supplementing the r e co r d

. ” F ox v. City of West Palm Beach, 383 F.2d 189, 1 94-95 (5th C ir. 1967). Here, the district court’s credibility determinations and f a c t ual findings were expressly based
upon k nowledge that the court independently procured outside the course of the current proceedings, and thus neither p a rty could test these findings for relevancy or reliability. Without citing empirical d at a , t h e court found that “virtually all of the Texas death row inmates with w h o m this Court h as dealt have been diagnos e d by qualified m ental health professionals w ith a ntisocial personality disorder. It has been this Court’s experience that the vast majority of Texas prison inmates i n general, and Texas death row i nmates in particular, d e m o n s t r a t e s e v e r al s i gn if i c a n t c h a r a c t e ri s t i c s o f a n t isocial p e rsonality disorder, specifically, an u nwillingness to accept r e sponsibility for their c ri m i n a l c o n du c t

. ” Wood v. Thaler, 787 F.Supp. 2d 458, 296 (W.D. Tex. 2011). Crediting the expert’s opinion who testified in accordance with the district court’s own e xperience, the court concluded that Wood does not suffer from a delusional disorder, but rather has a “hi g h l y m a n ipulative antisocial personality,” and t hus is ineligible for relief under Panetti

. Id. at 498. Jurists of reas o n could debate w hether the district court’s i mproper reliance upon its past experience with death row inmates resulted in an unfair hearing in violation of Wood’s Fourteenth Amendment due p rocess rights. This claim therefore deserves encouragement to proceed further. Additionally, W o o d h a s m a d e th e re q u i s ite sh o w in g w a rra n tin g C O A o n th e r e l a te d issu e o f w h e th e r th e ca se sh o u ld b e re m a n d e d a n d r e a ssig n e d

. T h is C o u rt’s p o w e r to re a ssig n a ca se o n r e m a n d i s a n “e x t r a o rd in a ry p o w e r a n d sh o u ld ra re ly b e in v o k e d .” U n ited S ta tes v . W

i n t ers , 1 7 4 F .3 d 4 7 8 , 4 8 7 ( 5 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 )

. H o w e v e r, re a s sig n m e n t “m a y b e a u th o rize d w h e re the original jud g e would reasonably b e e x pected upon remand t o h ave su b sta n tia l d ifficu lty in
3 Case: 11-70018 Document: 00512399694 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/07/2013No. 11-70018

p u ttin g o u t o f h i s o r h e r m in d p re v io u sly -e x p re sse d v ie w s o r fin d in g s d e te rm in e d to b e e rro n e o u s o r b a se d o n e v id e n ce th a t m u st b e

reje cte d , . . . w h e r e reassignment i s advisable to preserve the appearance of justice[,]

. . . [or] where the facts m ig h t r e a so n a b ly ca u se a n o bje ctiv e o b se rv e r to q u e s tio n [th e ju d g e ’ s] i m p a rtia lity

. ” L e a g u e of U n i t e d L a t in Am. Citizens, Dist. 19 v. City of B o erne , 6 75 F.3d 4 33, 440-41 ( 5th Cir. 2 012) (third alteration in

o r i g i n a l ) (quoting In re DaimlerChrysler C orp., 294 F .3d 697, 700-01 (5th C ir

. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted)). G iv e n th e d istrict co u rt’s e x p re sse d

v i e w s o n t h e m e n ta l h e a lth co n d itio n o f “v irtu a lly a ll” o f th e T e x a s d e a th ro w in m a te s , r e a so n a b l e ju rists co u ld d e b a te w h e th e r th e d istrict c o u rt co u ld

re a so n a b ly b e e x p e cte d to d isre g a r d th is e x p re sse d o p in io n . M o re o v e r, it is d ebat abl e w hether an o bje ctiv e o b se rv e r w o u ld re a so n a b ly ca ll in to q u e stio n t h e ju d g e ’s im p a rtia lity t o w a rd s W o o d ’s cla im th a t h e su ffe re d fro m a d e lu sio n a l d i s o rd e r. W e e m p h a size th a t w e d o n o t to d a y fin d th a t r e m a n d a n d

re a ssig n m e n t is n e ce ssa ry in th is ca se , n o r d o w e su g g e st th a t th is is th e p ro p e r d isp o sitio n . R a th e r, w e si m p l y h o ld th a t W o o d ’s cla im f o r re m a n d a n d

re a ssig n m e n t, a s th e co ro lla ry re m e d y to h is d u e p ro ce s s cla im , w a rra n t s

e n co u r a g e m e n tto p ro ce e d

. Wood has not made the requisite showing to warrant a COA w ith regard to any additional claims. Accordingly, the motion for a COA is GRANTED, and briefing limited to the merits of Wood’s claims regarding the di strict court’s improper reliance upon it s o w n experience and the related claim f or r e mand and reassignment is ordered.

4 Case: 11-70018 Document: 00512399694 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/07/2013