United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
RAYMOND L. SEALS, JR.
WARDEN DARREL VANNOY
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HORNSBY U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter
was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review,
report and recommendation.
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.
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.
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.
reasons stated below, Petitioner's application for
habeas relief should be dismissed for failure to
exhaust state court remedies.
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).
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).
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.
IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for
writ of habeas corpus be D ...