Filed: Jul. 03, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 03, 2013
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DANIEL E. KNOWLES, III, Magistrate Judge. This matter was referred to this United States Magistrate Judge for the purpose of conducting a hearing, including an evidentiary hearing, if necessary, and submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and, as applicable, Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Upon review of the record, the Court has
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DANIEL E. KNOWLES, III, Magistrate Judge. This matter was referred to this United States Magistrate Judge for the purpose of conducting a hearing, including an evidentiary hearing, if necessary, and submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and, as applicable, Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Upon review of the record, the Court has d..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DANIEL E. KNOWLES, III, Magistrate Judge.
This matter was referred to this United States Magistrate Judge for the purpose of conducting a hearing, including an evidentiary hearing, if necessary, and submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and, as applicable, Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Upon review of the record, the Court has determined that this matter can be disposed of without an evidentiary hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Therefore, for all of the following reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the petition be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Petitioner, Jason Austin, is a state prisoner incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana. On January 28, 1998, he was convicted of second degree murder under Louisiana law.1 On February 4, 1998, he was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.2 On September 29, 1999, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed that conviction and sentence.3
After several unsuccessful attempts to gain post-conviction relief from the state courts, petitioner filed the instant federal habeas corpus application on or about December 17, 2012.4 In his federal application, petitioner contends that the manner in which the state courts handled his post-conviction proceedings violated his rights. Specifically, he alleges that, at a hearing held on September 3, 2009, the state district court scheduled an evidentiary hearing with respect to one of his post-conviction applications. However, before that hearing was held, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reviewed the post-conviction claims and denied them as time-barred pursuant to La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.8.5 The Court of Appeal further reiterated that ruling in a subsequent decision.6 Although petitioner then challenged the propriety of the Court of Appeal's judgments on the basis that the court exceeded its jurisdiction by ruling on claims that had never been decided by the trial court, the Louisiana Supreme Court rejected that challenge, likewise ruling that petitioner's post-conviction application was barred by article 930.8.7 In this federal application, petitioner reasserts his claim that the Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction in denying his post-conviction claims as time-barred. He further argues that the Court of Appeal's decision to proceed in that manner violated his right to equal protection.
In its response, the state pretermits a discussion of whether the instant application is timely and whether petitioner exhausted his claims in the state courts, noting instead that relief is not warranted for a far simpler reason: petitioner's claims, which challenge the manner in which the state courts handled his post-conviction application, simply are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus proceedings. The state is correct.
Even if the state courts erred, federal habeas corpus relief cannot be granted to remedy errors which occurred in state post-conviction proceedings. As the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained:
[O]ur circuit precedent makes abundantly clear that errors in state postconviction proceedings will not, in and of themselves, entitle a petitioner to federal habeas relief. See, e.g., Hallmark v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1997) ("[I]nfirmities in state habeas proceedings do not constitute grounds for relief in federal court."); Nichols v. Scott, 69 F.3d 1255, 1275 (5th Cir. 1995) ("An attack on a state habeas proceeding does not entitle the petitioner to habeas relief in respect to his conviction, as it is an attack on a proceeding collateral to the detention and not the detention itself.") (internal quotations omitted). Rather, we must find constitutional error at the trial or direct review level in order to issue the writ.
Morris v. Cain, 186 F.3d 581, 585 n.6 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Duff-Smith v. Collins, 973 F.2d 1175, 1182 (5th Cir. 1992); Anthony v. Cain, Civ. Action No. 07-3223, 2009 WL 3564827, at *23 (E.D. La. Oct. 29, 2009); Baham v. Allen Correctional Center, Civ. Action No. 07-4075, 2009 WL 3148757, at *3 (E.D. La. Sept. 30, 2009); Davis v. Cain, Civ. Action No. 07-6389, 2008 WL 5191912, at *6 (E.D. La. Dec. 11, 2008). Although application of this rule often proves harsh, the Fifth Circuit has emphatically held that it must nevertheless be followed, stating:
We, as a federal appeals court entertaining a federal habeas corpus application, are without jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of [the petitioner's] state postconviction proceedings. Indeed, we are barred from doing so by our "no state habeas infirmities" rule. . . . [O]ur hands are tied by the AEDPA, preventing our review of [the petitioner's] attack on his Louisiana postconviction proceedings, so we dutifully dismiss his claim.
Kinsel v. Cain, 647 F.3d 265, 273-74 (5th Cir.) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 854 (2011). This Court's hands are likewise tied with respect to petitioner's claims, and therefore relief must be denied.8
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the petition of Jason Austin for federal habeas corpus relief be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).9
