Whether the Fifth Circuit applied an overly restrictive standard for granting a certificate of appealability (COA) where the district court found that the petitioner raised issues worthy of judicial review, and whether the petitioner established that the reasonableness of the state court's denial of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is debatable among reasonable jurists

QUESTION PRESENTED CAPITAL CASE Trial counsel was aware that Christopher Jackson had a childhood history of mental health diagnoses (including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) and had Child Protective Services records showing that he “was on a record breaking number of psychiatric medications.” However, counsel failed to conduct a follow-up investigation or obtain a comprehensive mental health evaluation in contravention of this Court’s holding in Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), that effective counsel have a duty to follow up on known information that might reasonably lead to the discovery of mitigating evidence. Yet the Fifth Circuit refused to grant a COA to permit appellate review of the district court’s denial of habeas relief. The Question Presented is: Where the district court wrote that Petitioner “raises issues worthy of judicial review,” has the Fifth Circuit again applied an overly restrictive standard for granting COA and has Petitioner established that the reasonableness of the state court’s denial of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is, at least, debatable among reasonable jurists? i