Youngblood v. Bordelon et al
Filing
20
ORDER denying as moot 3 17 Motions to Stay; and 18 Motion for Order - Issuance Subpoena Duces Tecum as stated herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 1/27/2025. (EDC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RON YOUNGBLOOD (#315437)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
VERSUS
24-421-SDD-EWD
DONNIE BORDELON, ET AL.
ORDER
Before the Court are three Motions, filed by Petitioner Ron Youngblood (“Youngblood”),
who is incarcerated at the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center (“EHCC”), and who is representing
himself. Two of the Motions request that this Court stay these habeas proceedings and the last asks
this Court to subpoena the mail logs from EHCC to show that Youngblood did not receive
Respondents’ Answer to his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus until October 16, 2024. 1 All
Motions will be denied as moot. 2
Petitioners seek and courts consider staying habeas cases for one general reason: to allow
the petitioner to cure a petition with both exhausted and unexhausted claims by allowing him to
proceed through the appropriate state courts to exhaust the unexhausted claims. 3 A stay is a
relatively extraordinary remedy because it has the potential to frustrate the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) objectives of encouraging finality and
streamlining federal habeas proceedings, so a stay should only be granted in limited
circumstances. 4 Youngblood does not ask to stay this case to allow him to exhaust unexhausted
1
R. Docs. 3, 17, & 18. Documents in the Court record are referred to as “R. Doc. ___.”
“Moot” means that the motions do not have to be resolved because they no longer have a practical impact on the
case for the reasons explained.
2
See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005) (stay and abeyance should be granted only in limited circumstances
when there is good cause for the failure to exhaust, the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no
indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics).
3
4
Id. at 277
claims in state court; rather, his first request to stay this case was because he wanted more time to
amend his petition. This is not a basis to stay a habeas case. Additionally, it appears the first request
is moot because, after the filing of the Motion, Youngblood amended his Petition. 5
Youngblood’s second request seeks a stay so that this Court can determine when he
received Respondents’ Answer to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Answer”). 6 Youngblood
states that Respondents’ Answer was postmarked August 8, 2024, but he did not receive it until
October 16, 2024. Youngblood appears to be under the impression that if he did not timely file a
reply to Respondents’ Answer then the facts alleged in the Answer “shall be accepted as true….” 7
Youngblood requested leave of Court to file his Reply, which was filed on or about October 25,
2024, 8 and the substance of Youngblood’s Reply will be considered, so this Motion is also moot.
Because the Court will consider Youngblood’s Reply, the Motion for Order-Issuance Subpoena
Duces Tecum, which asks for records to show that Youngblood did not receive Respondents’
Answer until October 16, 2024, will also be denied as moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motions, 9 filed by Petitioner Ron Youngblood, are DENIED
AS MOOT. Youngblood’s Memorandum in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed
on or about June 25, 2024, 10 and his Reply to Respondents’ Answer, filed on or about October 25,
On or about June 25, 2024, Youngblood filed a Memorandum in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and
it appears this is what Youngblood wanted extra time to file. See, R. Doc. 3, p. 1 (“The Amendments refers to the
Memorandum in Support connected with the instant matter.”); R. Doc. 5. As noted, even if the request was not moot,
it would be inappropriate because merely wanting more time to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus is not a valid
reason to stay a case and would frustrate the strict time limits imposed by AEDPA. However, as Youngblood’s
Memorandum was filed less than a month after the Petition and before Respondents answered, it will be considered.
5
6
R. Doc. 17.
7
R. Doc. 17, p. 2.
8
See, R. Docs. 15, 16.
9
R. Docs. 3, 17, & 18.
10
R. Doc. 5.
2
2024, 11 will be considered along with his original Petition.12 The matter is fully briefed, and
Youngblood’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus will be addressed in due course. 13
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on January 27, 2025.
S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
R. Doc. 15.
12
R. Doc. 1.
13
No further action is required by the parties at this time.
3
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?