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.

Rankin v. Cain

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

March 14, 2019

HENRY RANKIN
v.
BURL CAIN, WARDEN

         SECTION: “J” (3)

          ORDER AND REASONS

          CARL J. BARBIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is a Motion to Vacate Judgment (“Rule 60(b) motion”) (Rec. Doc. 11) filed by pro se Petitioner Henry Rankin (“Petitioner”) and an opposition thereto (Rec. Doc. 16). Petitioner filed a reply (Rec. Doc. 17). Having considered the motion and legal memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion should be DENIED.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Petitioner is a state prisoner incarcerated in the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted in Louisiana state court of second degree murder pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute 14:30.1 on December 9, 1982. On January 14, 1983, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to life imprisonment at hard labor. Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, which affirmed his conviction and sentence on April 1, 1985. Upon the expiration of the time for seeking certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, Petitioner's conviction became final on June 30, 1985.

         Petitioner filed his first application for post-conviction relief in the trial court on August 11, 1988, therein alleging that the trial court erred when it denied him a copy of the initial police report and allowed the district attorney to cross-examine Petitioner regarding other crimes for which he was convicted. (See Rec. Doc. 6 at 3). Petitioner also asserted that he should have been granted a new trial because of the discovery of new evidence which would have substantially affected the verdict. (See Rec. Doc. 6 at 3). On December 8, 1988, the district judge issued a judgment with reasons denying the post-conviction relief. (See Rec. Doc. 6 at 3). Thereafter, Petitioner filed for review in the Louisiana Fourth Circuit, and in the Louisiana Supreme Court. (See Rec. Doc. 6 at 3). Petitioner was denied relief on February 6, 1989, and September 14, 1990, respectively. (See Rec. Doc. 6 at 3).

         In September 1991, Petitioner filed his second motion for post-conviction relief in the trial court, alleging denial of due process regarding non-disclosure of a plea agreement relative to a witness and denial of effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. (See Rec. Doc. 6 at 3). The trial court denied the post-conviction relief on April 28, 1992, via judgment. (See Rec. Doc. 6 at 4). The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal denied Petitioner's writ of review. (See Rec. Doc. 6 at 4).

         On November 28, 1995, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit ruled, granting Petitioner's writ in part and denying in part. (See Rec. Doc. 6 at 4). The Fourth Circuit stated:

The relator claims that he was denied a fair trial when the prosecutor failed to correct misstatements by Curtis Bichman. Upon review we find no error in the trial court's ruling.
The trial court's findings as to relator's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are hereby vacated. The trial court is hereby ordered to hold an evidentiary hearing on these claims within sixty (60) days of this order and to furnish this Court with proof of compliance.

State v. Rankin, No. 95-K-2305 (La.App. 4 Cir. Nov. 28, 1995).

         The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on December 20, 1995. (See Rec. Doc. 6 at 4). On January 4, 1996, the trial court denied Petitioner's claim. (See Rec. Doc. 6 at 4). Petitioner sought relief from the Louisiana Fourth Circuit, which vacated the trial court's judgment, ordered that counsel be appointed to represent Petitioner, and further ordered another evidentiary hearing. State v. Rankin, No. 97-K-0105 (La.App. 4 Cir. March 18, 1997).

         The evidentiary hearing was held on May 22, 1997, and the trial court denied Petitioner's claims after the hearing. (See Rec. Doc. 6 at 5). Petitioner filed for supervisory writs in the Louisiana Fourth Circuit on November 20, 1997, alleging denial of a fair and impartial evidentiary hearing and ineffective assistance of counsel. (See Rec. Doc. 6 at 5). On December 23, 1997, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit denied relief. (See Rec. Doc. 6 at 5). On December 6, 1999, Petitioner filed for supervisory and/or remedial writs in the Louisiana Supreme Court under No. 1999-KH-3394. (See Rec. Doc. 6 at 5). The writs were denied on June 2, 2000. (See Rec. Doc. 6 at 5).

         On November 6, 2000, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Rec. Doc. 1). On February 5, 2001, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied with prejudice as untimely. (Rec. Doc. 6). This Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed Petitioner's petition with prejudice on March 6, 2001. (Rec. Doc. 7). That same day, this Court issued judgment in favor of Respondent. (Rec. Doc. 8). In 2010, Petitioner filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus that was determined to be second or successive and was transferred to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit denied Rankin authorization to proceed in 2011. Order, Rankin v. State of La., CV No. 10-067 (E.D. La. March 10, 2011); In re Rankin, 11-30240 (5th Cir. April 28, 2011). In 2014, Petitioner filed a third petition for writ of habeas corpus, presenting claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Petition, Rankin v. Goodwin, CV No. 14-1618 (E.D. La. July 11, 2014). Petitioner's third petition was deemed second or successive and transferred to the Fifth Circuit, which denied authorization to proceed in ...


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.