Court Opinion

ID: 9496195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:19:53.052237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:24.769825
License: Public Domain

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
In addition to the reasons stated by the panel, I would also hold that Johnson’s Atkins claim is proeedurally barred. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that his application seeking relief pursuant to Atkins “fails to satisfy the pleading requirement imposed by [Texas Code Grim. Proc.] art. 11.071, § 5(a) ...”, and the court accordingly dismissed it as an abuse of the writ under state law. That decision by Texas’s highest court states an adequate and independent state ground that bars federal habeas review absent a showing of cause and prejudice. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); Barrientes v. Johnson, 221 F.3d 741, 758-59 (5th Cir.2000). Johnson has provided no reason why federal courts are not bound by the procedural bar rule to deny him federal habeas relief. Hence, Johnson’s application for leave to file a successive habeas petition does not make a prima facie case in his favor.