Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 559.0

529US2

Unit: $U50

[09-26-01 10:29:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

484

SLACK v. McDANIEL

Opinion of the Court

must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitu-
tional right, a demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes
showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for
that matter, agree that) the petition should have been re-
solved in a different manner or that the issues presented
were “ ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed fur-
ther.’ ” Barefoot, supra, at 893, and n. 4 (“sum[ming] up”
the “ ‘substantial showing’ ” standard).

Where a district court has rejected the constitutional
claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c)
is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that
reasonable jurists would ﬁnd the district court’s assessment
of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The issue
becomes somewhat more complicated where, as here, the
district court dismisses the petition based on procedural
grounds. We hold as follows: When the district court denies
a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching
the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, 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. This construction
gives meaning to Congress’ requirement that a prisoner
demonstrate substantial underlying constitutional claims and
is in conformity with the meaning of the “substantial show-
ing” standard provided in Barefoot, supra, at 893, and n. 4,
and adopted by Congress in AEDPA. Where a plain pro-
cedural bar is present and the district court is correct to in-
voke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not
conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing
the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to pro-
ceed further.
In such a circumstance, no appeal would be
warranted.

Determining whether a COA should issue where the peti-
tion was dismissed on procedural grounds has two compo-