Opinion ID: 2902089
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cause and Prejudice for the Default

Text: Although Butler procedurally defaulted his IATC claim, he argues he can demonstrate cause and prejudice for the default and that this court should remand the IATC claim to the district court to determine whether it has “some merit” under Martinez and Trevino. See Martinez, 132 S. Ct. at 1318 (“To overcome [procedural] default, a prisoner must also demonstrate that the 30 Case: 09-70003 Document: 00513185744 Page: 31 Date Filed: 09/09/2015 Nos. 09-70003, 14-70018 underlying [IATC] claim is a substantial one, which is to say that the prisoner must demonstrate that the claim has some merit.” (citing Miller–El, 537 U.S. 322)). We have previously remanded cases for further proceedings when the district court or this court initially rejected IATC claims as procedurally defaulted before Martinez and Trevino were decided. See, e.g., Ibarra v. Stephens, 723 F.3d 599, 600 (5th Cir. 2013) (vacating a prior panel decision, granting a COA on an IATC claim, and remanding to the district court for further proceedings on that claim); Cantu v. Thaler, 682 F.3d 1053, 1053–54 (5th Cir. 2012) (vacating an earlier decision dismissing a federal habeas petition and underlying IATC claim as procedurally defaulted and remanding to the district court to “decide in the first instance the impact of Martinez v. Ryan on [the petitioner’s] contention that he had cause for his procedural default”). 15 We have declined to remand such cases when petitioners have not presented at least “debatable” ineffective assistance claims, 16 under AEDPA’s heightened standard when a state habeas court initially reviewed and rejected the ineffective assistance claims, 17 or when a district court had already 15See also Neathery v. Stephens, 746 F.3d 227, 229 (5th Cir. 2014) (remanding for a reconsideration of IATC claims under Martinez and Trevino and instructing the district court to determine whether any claims were preserved and if so, the merits of those claims); Ayestas v. Stephens, 553 F. App’x 422, 423 (5th Cir. 2014) (similar); Rayford v. Stephens, 552 F. App’x 367, 368 (5th Cir. 2014) (similarly remanding “for full reconsideration” under Trevino and Martinez, after briefing but before any opinion had been issued); Washington v. Stephens, 551 F. App’x 122, 123 (5th Cir. 2014) (granting COA on IATC claim and remanding for reconsideration in light of Trevino). 16 Reed v. Stephens, 739 F.3d 753, 774 n.11 (5th Cir.) (denying a COA and collecting cases that declined to remand in similar circumstances), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 435 (2014). 17Escamilla v. Stephens, 602 F. App’x 939, 940 (5th Cir. 2015), cert. petition filed, No. 14-9844 (May 18, 2015). 31 Case: 09-70003 Document: 00513185744 Page: 32 Date Filed: 09/09/2015 Nos. 09-70003, 14-70018 considered and dismissed the petitioner’s claim on the merits. 18 Butler’s IATC claim is dissimilar to the claims in Reed, Escamilla, Newbury, and similar cases because no court has yet considered the merits of the claim or whether Butler may show cause and prejudice under Martinez and Trevino. In this case, we conclude that the trial court should, in the first instance, be allowed to apply Martinez in accordance with Trevino to determine whether Butler can demonstrate cause for his procedural default and whether his claims have some merit under Martinez. See Ibarra, 723 F.3d at 600; Martinez, 132 S. Ct. at 1318. We therefore VACATE the district court’s dismissal of Claim 2 of Butler’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus—Butler’s IATC claim—and REMAND this claim for further consideration. 19