Whether the Fifth Circuit improperly denied a Certificate of Appealability (COA) by misapplying procedural default rules and violating due process in a habeas corpus petition

If reasonable jurists from {-this Court ‘Jackson v. Indiana ’-the Fifth Circuit ‘Benham v. Edwards ’-Texas Federal Courts ‘Reynolds v Neill, Hitt v McLane ’-a prior dissenting judge of same Texas court of appeals over this case concerning analogues claim ‘Beasley v. Molett,-and Prior Fifth Circuit Panel issuing COA on same claim here presented ‘‘Rubio v. Lumpkin ’’-} not only debated, but some, that it violated due process and equal protection where civil commitment statues withheld from a few, the procedural and substantive standards of protection made available to all others. ... Should Rubio had been allowed a COA to fully present his claims?1. Was the Fifth Circuit ’s denial of Habeas Relief and COA, based on an incorrect discretionary reason of the Federal Court -that purposely [ljfollowed the highest state court of reason ’s denial of relief (based on adequate state remedy) yet [2]abandoned that reason to hold it was procedurally defaulted. . .to unfairly assure that Rubio could not get review of this claim?2.