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.

Seals v. Vannoy

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

March 2, 2018

RAYMOND L. SEALS, JR.
v.
WARDEN DARREL VANNOY

          HICKS MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          MARK L. HORNSBY U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation.

         STATEMENT OF CLAIM

         Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by pro se petitioner Raymond L. Seals, Jr. (“Petitioner”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. This petition was received and filed in this court on October 11, 2016. Petitioner is incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. He challenges his state court habitual offender adjudication and sentence. He names Warden Darrel Vannoy as respondent.

         On August 12, 2004, Petitioner was convicted of one count of armed robbery in the Louisiana First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo. On February 1, 2005, he was adjudicated a second felony offender and sentenced to 60 years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

         In support of this petition, Petitioner alleges his habitual offender adjudication and sentence are illegal because the law at the time was unconstitutionally vague and/or the evidence was insufficient.

         For the reasons stated below, Petitioner's application for habeas relief should be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies.

         LAW AND ANALYSIS

         Habeas corpus relief is available to a person who is in custody "in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, the right to pursue habeas relief in federal court is not unqualified. It is well settled that a petitioner seeking federal habeas corpus relief cannot collaterally attack his state court conviction in federal court until he has exhausted all available state remedies. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198 (1982); Minor v. Lucas, 697 F.2d 697 (5th Cir. 1983).

         This requirement is not a jurisdictional bar but a procedural one erected in the interest of comity providing state courts first opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged constitutional violations. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275, 92 S.Ct. 509, (1971); Rose, 455 U.S. at 509, 102 S.Ct. at 1198. Moreover, in the event that the record or the habeas corpus petition, on its face, reveals that the petitioner has not complied with the exhaustion requirement, a United States district court is expressly authorized to dismiss the claim. See Resendez v. McKaskle, 722 F.2d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 1984).

         Petitioner admits in his petition that he has not exhausted his available state court remedies as to the claims presented in this petition (Doc. 1, p. 27). Thus, Petitioner did not exhaust his state court remedies prior to filing his petition in this court.

         Accordingly;

         IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus be D ...


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.