Allen v. Cain et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 33 . FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for Habeas Corpus relief is DENIED with prejudice as time-barred. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Notice of Attempt toObtain Case and Computer (Rec. Doc. 31), Amendment to Prior Notice Concerning My Attempt to Obtain Case and Computer and Motion for Help From This Court to Preserve Exculpatory Evidence(Rec. Doc. 32), and Notice (Rec. Doc. 34), are DISMISSED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 8/1/2011.(gec, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHARLES ALLEN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 10-4507

BURL CAIN

SECTION "J"(4)
ORDER

Before the Court are the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (Rec. Doc. 33) and Petitioner’s Objections and
Renewed Motion for Discovery of Complaints Filed Against Inmate
Counsel Eddie Yiree and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, Questions
(Rec. Doc. 35).

Also before the Court are Petitioner’s Notice of

Attempt to Obtain Case and Computer (Rec. Doc. 31), Amendment to
Prior Notice Concerning My Attempt to Obtain Case and Computer
and Motion for Help From This Court to Preserve Exculpatory
Evidence (Rec. Doc. 32), and Notice (Rec. Doc. 34), which were
delivered to the Court through mail.
The Court, having considered the complaint, the record, the
applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (Rec. Doc. 33), and Petitioner’s
Objection (Rec. Doc. 35), hereby OVERRULES Petitioner’s
Objection.

Petitioner’s main argument concerns his failure to

timely apply for a writ application with the Louisiana Supreme
Court.

Crucial to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation was the finding that Petitioner did not

demonstrate an entitlement to equitable tolling of the one-year
statute-of-limitation period for filing his habeas petition.

He

could not demonstrate a proper excuse for his untimely 2007 writ
application with the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s

Objection argues that the State impeded his access to law library
facilities, which resulted in his belief that he had more than 30
days after the Louisiana Fifth Circuit denied his request for
rehearing after direct appeal in which to apply for a writ with
the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Namely, he asserts that inmate

counsel refused to give him a copy of the Louisiana court rules
and denied him library access for malicious reasons.
Petitioner cites Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) for
the proposition that the alleged denial of access to legal
resources regarding filing deadlines is an unconstitutional state
impediment that should excuse his failure to timely file a writ
application with the Louisiana Supreme Court, which timely filed
would have tolled the habeas statute of limitations.

Although

Bounds does hold that the “fundamental constitutional right of
access to the courts requires prison authorities to . . .
[provide] prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate
assistance from persons trained in the law,” id. at 828,
Petitioner provides nothing more than bare assertions and copies
of his complaints filed within the prison, in his attempt to

prove that he was not provided adequate access.1

Additionally,

an inmate’s ignorance or mistake concerning legal requirements,
e.g., the Louisiana Supreme Court writ application filing
deadline, does not justify equitable tolling.

See U.S. v. Riggs,

314 F.3d 796, 799 (5th Cir. 2002).
The petitioner’s remaining notices and motions are rendered
moot by this Court’s adoption of the Report and Recommendation
(Rec. Doc. 33).

Petitioner’s Notice of Attempt to Obtain Case

and Computer (Rec. Doc. 31) requests this Court to provide a copy
of Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011), which partially
formed the basis of the Magistrate Judge’s denial of Petitioner’s
discovery motions (Rec. Docs. 28 & 29). Petitioner’s Amendment to
Prior Notice Concerning My Attempt to Obtain Case and Computer
and Motion for Help From This Court to Preserve Exculpatory
Evidence (Rec. Doc. 32) contains what Petitioner titles a “Motion
to Preserve Evidence,” in case Petitioner would somehow be able
to obtain a computer that he alleges would have contained useful
and exculpatory evidence.
1

Lastly, Petitioner’s

Notice (Rec.

The Court notes that Petitioner makes additional Objections (Rec. Doc.
37) that were late-filed; Petitioner alleges that this lateness is due to his
delayed receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Even if
the Court takes these objections into consideration, the outcome is unchanged.
Petitioner attempts to support his allegation of deprivation of law library
access through a portion of “Exhibit Q,” which Petitioner states is already in
the record. The Court notes that the Exhibit chiefly consists of complaints
the Petitioner filed against inmate counsel with Angola Warden Burl Cain.
This documentation is insufficient to prove the alleged malicious denial to
law library access. The Court finds no merit in Petitioner’s remaining
objections: that Magistrate Judge Roby has misconstrued his allegations and
claims; that the Petitioner has obtained newly discovered evidence that should
result in a delayed running of the statute of limitations; and that the
Magistrate Judge has improperly applied U.S. Supreme Court case law. The
alleged newly discovered evidence is chiefly computer files that the
Magistrate Judge has previously rejected as inadmissible (Rec. Doc. 27).

Doc. 34) contains allegations of arbitrary denial by prison
officials of access to witnesses, jurors, and several books that
Petitioner apparently believes would be useful in formulating a
plan for pursuing alleged exculpatory evidence.

The issues

raised in these several documents filed by Petitioner are mooted
by this Court’s adoption of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (Rec. Doc. 33), which dismisses as untimely Mr.
Allen’s habeas petition.

Accordingly,

The Court, having considered the complaint, the record, the
applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge, and Petitioner’s Objections, hereby
approves the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for Habeas Corpus
relief is DENIED with prejudice as time-barred.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Notice of Attempt to
Obtain Case and Computer (Rec. Doc. 31), Amendment to Prior
Notice Concerning My Attempt to Obtain Case and Computer and
Motion for Help From This Court to Preserve Exculpatory Evidence
(Rec. Doc. 32), and Notice (Rec. Doc. 34), are DISMISSED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 1st day of August, 2011.

____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE