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.

Lavergne v. Rowe

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

February 5, 2018

DANIEL TIMOTHY LAVERGNE, JR. DOC # 707218
v.
DANIEL ROWE

         SECTION P

          UNASSIGNED DISTRICT JUDGE MAGISTRATE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by pro se petitioner Daniel Timothy Lavergne, Jr. Lavergne is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. He is incarcerated at Vernon Correctional Center in Leesville, Louisiana.

         This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of this court. For reasons stated below, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the petition be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as time-barred.

         I.

         Background

         Lavergne states that he pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated armed robbery in the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, and was sentenced on November 19, 2015, to a twelve-year term of imprisonment. Doc. 1, p. 1. He indicates that he did not file any appeal or application for post-conviction relief in the state courts, nor can we find any record of such proceedings in the databases available to us.[1] See Id. at 1-15.

         On or about January 25, 2018, Lavergne filed the instant habeas petition and supporting memorandum. Doc. 1; doc. 1, att. 2. In his first claim for relief he alleges that the state of Louisiana, “by the act of ‘denationalization' committed on petitioner, ” has made him “a ‘black' ‘political hostage.'” Doc. 1, att. 2, p. 2 (capitalization corrected). In his second claim, he contends that the state had no jurisdiction over his case because of this “denationalization.” Id. at 4-6.

         The form used by Lavergne for his petition explained:

CAUTION: To proceed in the federal court, you must ordinarily first exhaust (use up) your available state-court remedies on each ground on which you request action by the federal court. Also, if you fail to set forth all the grounds in this petition, you may be barred from presenting additional grounds at a later date.

Doc. 1, p. 5 (emphasis in original). In the space provided to explain why he had not exhausted state remedies, Lavergne stated “a conflict between state laws and federal laws and the United States Constitution, ” and added that he did not raise the issues on direct appeal because “lower courts [have] no jurisdiction to rule or hear claims of conflict between state and federal laws.” Id. at 5, 7 (capitalization corrected).

         The form also included a warning on timeliness, stating: “If your judgment of conviction became final over one year ago, you must explain why the one-year statute of limitations as contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) does not bar your petition.” Id. at 13. In a footnote, the form then provided the applicable limitations ...


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.