Brian Dietrich v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden, No. 19-30341 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-30341 Document: 00515404618 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-30341 May 5, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk BRIAN DIETRICH, Petitioner-Appellant v. DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:17-CV-637 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Brian Dietrich, Louisiana prisoner # 125055, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and sentenced in 1988 to life imprisonment. He now moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) following the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as procedurally defaulted. To obtain a COA, a § 2254 petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the district court’s denial of federal habeas relief is based on procedural 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-30341 Document: 00515404618 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2020 No. 19-30341 grounds, this court will issue a COA “when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that 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). Dietrich fails to make the requisite showing for issuance of a COA with respect to the district court’s denial of his petition on procedural grounds. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. His motion for a COA is therefore denied. To the extent that he requests a COA regarding the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing, we construe his motion as a direct appeal of that issue and affirm. See Norman v. Stephens, 817 F.3d 226, 234-35 (5th Cir. 2016). COA DENIED; AFFIRMED. 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.
