Thompson v. Cain

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30150
Conference Calendar
ARTHUR THOMPSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN, WARDEN,
LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-361-B
--------------------
October 29, 2002
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arthur Thompson, Louisiana prisoner # 127301, appeals the
district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as
untimely. The district court granted Thompson a certificate of
appealability on the issue whether Campbell v. Louisiana, 523
U.S. 392, 401 (1998), announced a new rule of constitutional law
that has been made retroactively applicable to cases on

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-30150
-2-
collateral review. Thompson argues on appeal that his petition,
in which he raised a Campbell claim, was timely filed.
We review the district court's findings of fact for clear
error and issues of law de novo. Evans v. Cockrell, 285 F.3d
370, 374 (5th Cir. 2002).
In Campbell, the Supreme Court held, on direct review from a
criminal conviction, that a white defendant possessed standing to
object to discrimination against black people in the selection of
his grand jury. Campbell, 523 U.S. at 400. Although we recently
held that Campbell did not announce a new rule of constitutional
law, Thompson, a black male, did not have to wait for the
decision in Campbell to raise his claim concerning the racial
composition of the grand jury. See Rideau v. Whitley, 237 F.3d
472, 484 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 924 (2001); see
also Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 551 (1979)(citing to
numerous cases). Consequently, Thompson did not file his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus within the time limits
provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Accordingly, the district
court’s order dismissing his petition as untimely is AFFIRMED.
In light of the foregoing, Thompson’s request for appointment of
counsel is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --