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.

Guillory v. Vonnoy

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

February 14, 2019

PATRICK GUILLORY JR #587254
v.
DARRL VONNOY

          DOUGHTY JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Patrick J. Hanna United State Magistrate Judge

         Petitioner Patrick Guillory, Jr. (“Guillory”) filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on December 4, 2018 [Rec. Doc. 1], as well as two subsequent Amended Petitions on January 14, 2019 [Rec. Doc. 4], and January 30, 2019 [Rec. Doc. 6]. Petitioner is incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana, where he is serving a forty-year sentence imposed by the Fifteenth Judicial District Court for Acadia Parish, Louisiana, following his 2011 conviction for attempted second degree murder.

         This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of the Court. For the following reasons it is recommended that the petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.

         I. Background

         By this proceeding, Guillory attacks his 2011 conviction for attempted second degree murder and the subsequent forty-year sentence imposed by the Fifteenth Judicial District Court for Acadia Parish, Louisiana. He raises twenty-six claims and seeks immediate release and 100 million dollars.

         This court's records demonstrate that Guillory has filed a previous federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in which he attacked this same conviction and sentence. Patrick Guillory, Jr. v. Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, No. 6:14-cv-1008 (W.D. La. 2014). The first petition was denied and dismissed with prejudice on December 5, 2014. Id. at Rec. Doc. 9. Judge Doherty denied a certificate of appealability. Id. at Rec. Doc. 10. Petitioner did not seek to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, nor did he request the issuance of a certificate of appealability from that court. In 2018, Petitioner began filing in the closed lawsuit. On November 20, 2018, Judge Doughty, in an Order denying Petitioner's Motion to Re-Open the original lawsuit, notified Petitioner that if he wished to file a second and successive Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, he must first obtain authorization from the Fifth Circuit. Id. at Rec. Doc. 19.

         Guillory filed the instant petition for federal habeas corpus relief on December 4, 2018 [Rec. Doc. 1], as well as two subsequent Amended Petitions on January 14, 2019 [Rec. Doc. 4], and January 30, 2019 [Rec. Doc. 6]. Therein, he raises the same claim raised in his previous petition, as well as twenty-five additional claims: (1) he wasn't properly Boykinized; (2) faulty plea; (3) offense was partially caused by law enforcement; (4) trial counsel was made aware of his mental health and didn't do anything; (5) the court was aware of his incompetence and did nothing;

         (6) the D.A. was aware of his mental health and possible incompetence and still violated his rights by offering him a plea bargain after only 30 days after the arrest;

         (7) case presented against him was meritless; (8) he was not given leniency for being an informant or first offender; (9) on a previous offense he was offered a sanity examination but the court failed to do so in these proceedings; (10) he personally put the court on notice that he was incompetent in a letter to the judge and nothing was done; (11) he was incompetent and insane at the time of the offense and the M'Naughten Rule would free him; (12) his sanity causes him to suffer from his conviction - a potent cruel and unusual punishment; (13) as an informant his life has been placed in danger by the prison population; (14) he wasn't arraigned, only offered a plea deal while mentally disturbed; (15) his mental health records from the Crowley Mental Health will prove he was insane at the time of the offense; (16) he was insane at the time of the plea signing; (17) he signed the plea under the impression that his attorney would file a post-conviction application and bring him in for a generous time cut for being an informer and first offender; (18) being arrested after a suicide attempt and insane and not getting help from the court has driven him to attempt suicide several times in prison; (19) the examination he received while locked up on a previous offense was not followed by a court hearing depriving him of justice and allowing the court to proceed unconstitutionally without being aware of what the examination found; (20) he did not receive a competency hearing after it became an issue, even after a letter to the court; (21) his lawyer failed to issue a habeas corpus upon determination that his constitutional rights were abridged by his failure to receive adequate hearing on competency to stand trial; (22) being forced to take mental health injections is cruel and unusual punishment; (23) he was incarcerated five times for serious offenses just over a year in time and it was found that he was suffering from five major mental health disorders; (24) his mother was used by both the D.A. and his lawyer to make him sign a plea deal; and (25) he was let out of parish prison to work as informant about the drug trade, helped to put ten people in jail and was promised freedom and help for his work, but did not get that when he received a forty-year sentence.

         II. Law and Analysis

         a. Habeas Corpus Claims

         In this matter, Guillory again seeks to attack the same conviction and sentence he sought to attack in his first Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus. "Before presenting a second or successive petition, the petitioner must obtain an order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) and (4)." Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. Dist. Courts. The bar on second or successive petitions applies to a later-in-time petition that challenges the same judgment imposing the same sentence as an earlier-in-time petition. In re Lampton, 667 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 156 (2007)).

         Although the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") does not define "second or successive," the Fifth Circuit has long held that "a later petition is successive when it: (1) raises a claim challenging the petitioner's conviction or sentence that was or could have been raised in an earlier petition; or (2) otherwise constitutes an abuse of the writ." In re Cain, 137 F.3d 234, 235 (5th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added); Crone v. Cockrell, 324 F.3d 833, 836 (5th Cir. 2003). The phrase "second or successive" applies to an entire application, not to individual claims in an application. Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 334 (2010) ("AEDPA uses the phrase 'second or successive' to modify 'application.'"). "[A]n application filed after a previous application was adjudicated on the merits is a second or successive application within the meaning of 28 ...


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.