United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
ST. JULIAN BARANCO #543093
OFFICER CURTIS WILSON, ET AL.
WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report
has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen
(14) days after being served with the attached Report to file
written objections to the proposed findings of fact,
conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to
file written objections to the proposed findings,
conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being
served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which
have been accepted by the District Court.
NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE=S REPORT.
JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
se Petitioner, an inmate confined at the Caldwell
Correctional Center, Grayson, Louisiana, brought this habeas
corpus proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
challenging his conviction and three-year sentence of
confinement entered in 2017 in the 19th Judicial
District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge on a charge
of aggravated flight from an officer. Petitioner asserts that
his guilty plea to the above charge was deficient and that
the factual basis therefore, as reflected in his
Boykin examination, was erroneous. He asserts that
this has resulted in a violation of his constitutional rights
and he prays that his conviction be invalidated.
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c), a claimant seeking
federal habeas corpus relief is required to first exhaust his
claims by presenting them for review before the courts of the
state in which he is confined. See 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b)(1) (“An application for a writ of habeas corpus
on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of
a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that ...
the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the
courts of the State....”) The Supreme Court has
interpreted § 2254(b)(1) to require dismissal of a
habeas corpus petition if it contains even a single
unexhausted claim - the “total exhaustion”
requirement. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-19
(1982). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied only when a
petitioner's claims have been properly presented to the
state's highest court, either on direct review or on
post-conviction attack. Rose v. Lundy, supra, 455
U.S. at 522 (1982); Bufalino v. Reno, 613 F.2d 568,
570 (5th Cir. 1980). One of the threshold requirements for a
federal habeas corpus application under § 2254 is that,
subject to certain limited exceptions not applicable here, a
petitioner must have first exhausted in state court all of
his claims before presenting them for review before the
federal district court.
reaching the merits of Petitioner's claims, it is clear
from a review of his application, as amended, that he has not
exhausted state court remedies relative to the claims
asserted in this proceeding. Specifically, Petitioner fails to
assert that he has proceeded with a review of his claims
before any state court, much less the Louisiana Supreme
Court. To the contrary, he explicitly concedes that he did
not pursue a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence,
and he acknowledges that he has not filed any post-conviction
relief applications in the state courts. See Rec.
Doc. 6 at pp. 2-3. Thus, it does not appear that Petitioner
has pursued his claims before the courts of the State of
Louisiana, through and including the Louisiana Supreme Court,
and as a result, his application before this Court is subject
to dismissal for this reason.
to statute, an appeal may not be taken to the federal court
of appeals from a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding
“unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).
Although Petitioner has not yet filed a Notice of Appeal,
this Court may nonetheless address whether he would be
entitled to a certificate of appealability. See Alexander
v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000). A
certificate of appealability may issue only if a habeas
petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In cases
where the Court has rejected a petitioner's
constitutional claims on procedural grounds, a petitioner
must demonstrate that “jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of a
denial of constitutional right and that jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling.” Ruiz v.
Quarterman, 460 F.3d 638, 642 (5th Cir. 2006) (emphasis
in original). In the instant case, the Court finds that
reasonable jurists would not debate the denial of
Petitioner's § 2254 application or the correctness
of the procedural ruling. Accordingly, it is appropriate
that, in the event that Petitioner seeks to pursue an appeal
in this case, a certificate of appealability be denied.
recommended that Petitioner's claims be dismissed,
without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state court
remedies. It is further recommended that in the event that
Petitioner seeks to pursue an appeal in this case, a
certificate of appealability be denied.