Williams v. Cain et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 . IT IS ORDERED that the petition for habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/14/2017.(cg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GLENN LEO WILLIAMS
SECTION “R” (3)
The Court has reviewed de novo the petition for habeas corpus,1 the
Recommendation,2 and the petitioner’s objections.3 The Magistrate Judge’s
recommended ruling is correct, and petitioner’s objections were fully
addressed by the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation or are
otherwise without merit.4 Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation as its opinion herein.
R. Doc. 4.
R. Doc. 15.
R. Doc. 16.
Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in deferring to the
state court’s decision rejecting petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel
claim. Petitioner contends that the Court can conduct a complete review of
his claims, citing Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993). This objection
is meritless. Fretwell was decided before the passage of the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and therefore does not reflect the
current standard of review in habeas proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings provides that
“[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it
enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order,
the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate
should issue.” Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, Rule 11(a). A
court may issue a certificate of appealability only if the petitioner makes “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2); Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, Rule 11(a) (noting
that § 2253(c)(2) supplies the controlling standard).
standard” for a certificate of appealability requires the petitioner to show
“that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that)
the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the
issues presented [are] ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.’” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
Here, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a
constitutional right. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
clearly and correctly disposes of each of petitioner’s claims.
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for habeas corpus is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of August, 2017.
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?