United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
DANIEL TIMOTHY LAVERGNE, JR. DOC # 707218
UNASSIGNED DISTRICT JUDGE MAGISTRATE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
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
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
See Id. at 1-15.
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.
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).
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 ...