James Rubio v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

If reasonable jurists from {-this Court ‘Jackson v. Indiana’- -the Fifth Circuit ‘Benham v. Edwards ’- -Texas Federal Courts ‘Reynolds v Neill, Hitt v McLane ’- -a prior dissenting judge of same Texas court of appeals over this case concerning analogues claim ‘Beasley v. Molett,- -and Prior Fifth Circuit Panel issuing COA on same claim here presented ‘‘Rubio v. Lumpkin’’-} not only debated, but some, that it violated due process and equal protection where civil commitment statues withheld from a few, the procedural and substantive standards of protection made available to all others.... Should Rubio had been allowed a COA to fully present his claims?

Was the Fifth Circuit’s denial of Habeas Relief and COA, based on an incorrect discretionary reason of the Federal Court -that purposely [ljfollowed the highest state court of reason’s denial of relief (based on adequate state remedy) yet [2]abandoned that reason to hold it was procedurally defaulted.. .to unfairly assure that Rubio could not get review of this claim?