Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Cain

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

June 26, 2015

MICHAEL WILLIAMS
v.
N. BURL CAIN, WARDEN

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MICHAEL B. NORTH, Magistrate Judge.

This matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to conduct a hearing, including an evidentiary hearing, if necessary, and to submit proposed findings and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and as applicable, Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Upon review of the entire record, the Court has determined that this matter can be disposed of without an evidentiary hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e) (2). For the following reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the petition for habeas corpus relief be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as untimely.

Procedural history

Petitioner, Michael Williams, is a state prisoner incarcerated in the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. On March 24, 1994, Williams was charged by grand jury indictment with aggravated rape and aggravated crime against nature in violation of Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:42 and 14:89.1.[1] On November 9, 1995, following a two-day jury trial, he was found guilty as charged.[2] On February 29, 1996, he was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment on the aggravated rape conviction and ten years imprisonment as a third-felony offender on the aggravated crime against nature conviction. It was ordered that the sentences be served concurrently and without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence.[3]

The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions and sentences on December 18, 1996.[4] Williams filed an untimely writ to the Louisiana Supreme Court on February 26, 1997.[5] His writ application to the Louisiana Supreme Court was denied on November 14, 1997.[6] He did not seek review to the United States Supreme Court.

On or about August 12, 2009, more than ten years later, Williams submitted a pro se application for post-conviction relief and request for an evidentiary hearing to the state district court.[7] The district court denied relief on March 18, 2011.[8] His related writ application to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal was denied on September 23, 2011.[9] His subsequent request for supervisory writ of review to the Louisiana Supreme Court was denied on March 23, 2012.[10]

On March 24, 2014, Williams filed his federal application for habeas corpus relief.[11] He contends the prosecution failed to disclose information favorable to the defense and knowingly permitted the victim to testify falsely. The State argues that his application should be dismissed as untimely.

Discussion

A. One-year statute of limitations

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., governs the filing date for this action because Williams filed his habeas petition after the AEDPA's effective date. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). The AEDPA includes a one-year period of limitations for habeas petitions brought by prisoners challenging state-court judgments. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) provides, in pertinent part:

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.