ROBERTSON v. DAVIS (2018)

On December 21, 2017, this court issued a nondispositive opinion denying a certificate of appealability with respect to Mark Robertson’s claim that his death sentence was based on materially inaccurate evidence. Robertson v. Davis, 715 F. App’x 387 (5th Cir. 2017). The panel reserved judgment on whether the district court abused its discretion in denying funding requests under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f).

On March 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued Ayestas v. Davis, which rejected our Circuit’s standard for determining whether investigative funds pursuant to § 3599(f) are “reasonably necessary.” See ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1080, 200 L.Ed.2d 376 (2018). Because the district court has not had the opportunity to consider how Ayestas might apply to Robertson’s requests—and the district court’s subsequent denials—for funding, we believe the issue is best considered by the district court in the first instance. See, e.g., Sorto v. Davis, 716 F. App’x 366, 366 (5th Cir. 2018); Frey v. Stephens, 616 F. App’x 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2015) (noting that we have remanded habeas cases for reconsideration “where relevant binding decisions were issued after the district court ruled”).

Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s denial of funding and REMAND for reconsideration in light of Ayestas.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.