Benjamin Jakes-Johnson v. United States

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) and this Court’s precedents establish that certificates of appealability (“COA”) may be issued to habeas petitioners seeking appellate review of their constitutional claims if “a circuit justice or judge” determines that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115 (2017) (quoting MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003)). This Court has made clear that an appellate court’s evaluation of whether a COA should issue is a threshold inquiry, it is not a merits determination, and an appellate court improperly sidesteps the COA process when it prematurely denies a COA based on an adjudication of the merits. Buck, 580 U.S. at 115–16. This case presents two questions relating to the COA inquiry, which have sharply divided the circuits: 1. In Buck, 580 U.S. at 117, this Court established that “whatever procedures are employed at the COA stage” by an appellate court “should be consonant with the limited nature of the [COA] inquiry.” Are the practices adopted by the Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits of issuing summary denials citing to applicable standards without further analysis “consonant with the limited nature of the [COA] inquiry” and sufficient to allow meaningful review by this Court, or are reasoned explanations for denials, such as those provided by the Sixth and Tenth Circuits, necessary to demonstrate compliance with Buck and to allow meaningful review by this Court?