Bailey, et al v. Rosenthal

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 8, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-20516
USDC No. 4:03-CV-1344
USDC No. 4:03-CV-1343
USDC No. 4:03-CV-1342
USDC No. 4:03-CV-1341
USDC No. 4:03-CV-1340
BRENDA SUE BAILEY; JOHN ALLEN BABIN; CHARLES FRANCIS
COLEMAN; JAMES ARNOLD SCHNUR; RALPH F. SCHNUR,
Petitioners-Appellants,
versus
CHARLES ROSENTHAL, District Attorney for Harris County Texas,
Respondent-Appellee.
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ALLEN BABIN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES ROSENTHAL, District Attorney for Harris County Texas,
Respondent-Appellee.
------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES FRANCIS COLEMAN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES ROSENTHAL, District Attorney for Harris County Texas,
Respondent-Appellee.

-- 1 of 3 --

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ARNOLD SCHNUR,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES ROSENTHAL, District Attorney for Harris County Texas,
Respondent-Appellee.
------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH F. SCHNUR,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES ROSENTHAL, District Attorney for Harris County Texas,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(USDC No. 03-CV-1340)
--------------------
PER CURIAM:*
The appellants in this case appeal from the dismissal of
their 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions. A certificate of appealability
(“COA”) is required to appeal “the final order in a habeas corpus
proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of
process issued by a State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).
Because the appellants are seeking release from the pending state

-- 2 of 3 --

3
criminal proceedings against them, a COA is required before they
can proceed on appeal. Stringer v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259, 261-
622 (5th Cir. 1998).
The district court must make the initial determination
whether a COA should issue. Muniz v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 43, 45
(5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the
district court for the limited purpose of the district court’s
issuance of a COA ruling. Once the district court has issued its
ruling, this court will consider the case.

-- 3 of 3 --