Eric Tucker v. Lorie Davis, Director, No. 18-20343 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-20343 Document: 00515185302 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-20343 ERIC SAMUEL TUCKER, FILED November 4, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Petitioner - Appellant v. LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CV-1470 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Eric Samuel Tucker was convicted in Texas of aggravated assault of a family member and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. Tucker v. State, 2016 WL 3162367, at *1 (Tex. App. June 2, 2016). In May 2018, Tucker filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the district court dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of an already pending petition, filed in Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 18-20343 Document: 00515185302 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2019 No. 18-20343 September 2017. In its order dismissing the petition, the district court did not rule whether a certificate of appealability (COA) was warranted. Tucker now appeals to this court without a COA. A COA is required to appeal the denial of an unauthorized successive habeas petition under § 2254. See Cardenas v. Thaler, 651 F.3d 442, 443 (5th Cir. 2011). Because the district court did not issue a COA determination, we lack jurisdiction over Tucker’s appeal. We decline to remand this case to the district court for a COA ruling because remand would be futile. See United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court will only grant a COA when “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). No reasonable jurist could find the district court’s procedural ruling dismissing Tucker’s petition debatable. Claims raised in a successive habeas petition that were raised in the initial petition must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). And, any new claim must be dismissed unless the “factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i). Here, all but one of Tucker’s claims were raised in his first petition, and the lone new claim is an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which no reasonable jurist could find was undiscoverable when Tucker filed his first petition. Because remanding for the district court to rule on the COA would be pointless, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
