Whether a district court may enforce a collateral attack waiver that prevents a pro se habeas petitioner from presenting a potentially meritorious Brady claim

In this case, the district court denied applicant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 application—and denied a certificate of appealability (COA)—for one reason and one reason only: to enforce a collateral attack waiver. Applicant appealed and sought a COA from the Ninth Circuit. Rather than address the district court’s rationale, the panel denied a COA on an entirely different ground: that “the underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion fails to state a federal constitutional claim debatable among jurists of reason.” Ex. B. The Ninth Circuit denied a timely motion for reconsideration and reconsideration en banc. The questions presented are: 1. Whether Your Honor should issue a COA because reasonable jurists could find the correctness of the district court’s decision to enforce the collateral attack waiver debatable or wrong and the habeas petition, construed in the light most favorable to the pro-se habeas applicant, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, (1976), states a claim of the denial of a constitutional right under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 2. Whether Your Honor should issue a COA because reasonable jurists could find the correctness of the district court’s decision to enforce the collateral attack waiver debatable or wrong and the habeas petition shows on its face that it is capable of amendment to cure any pleading deficiency.