Griffin v. Goodwin

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Directing plaintiff to amend complaint/petition. Pro Se Response due by 4/10/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 2/28/2017. (crt,Reeves, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
RAY GRIFFIN
D.O.C. #85249

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-1519
SECTION P

VERSUS

:

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS,
JR.

JERRY GOODWIN

:

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HAYES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is the application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 by petitioner Ray Griffin (“Griffin”). Griffin is an inmate in the custody of Louisiana’s
Department of Public Safety and Corrections and is incarcerated at David Wade Correctional
Center (“DWCC”) in Homer, Louisiana.
This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation
in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of the court.
I.
Background
Griffin pleaded guilty to armed robbery. Doc. 1, p. 1. On July 30, 2001, he was
sentenced in the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court (“26th JDC”) in Bossier Parish to 40 years
imprisonment. Id. He claims that his appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal, wherein he
argued excessive sentence, was denied. Id. at 2. Griffin states that the appeal was docketed as
04-KH-39511. Id. He alleges that he did not seek further review by a higher state court. Id.
However, the published jurisprudence shows that the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs on
November 29, 2005. See State ex rel. Griffin v. State, 2004-KH-3209, 916 So.2d 155 (La. 2005);

-1-

Parish of Bossier, 26th JDC Div. D, No. 100,330; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No.
39511-KH.
Griffin states that his next filing was a writ of habeas corpus filed in the Louisiana Supreme
Court on June 29, 2016. Doc. 1, p. 3. Therein, he claims that he argued that the state lacked
standing and subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Published jurisprudence shows that the Louisiana
Supreme Court ruled on Griffin’s writ application on November 7, 2016, stating “WRIT NOT
CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below
before filing in this Court nor shown the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ that would justify
bypassing that level of review. La. S. Ct. Rule X § 5(b).” State ex rel. Griffin v. State, 2016KH-1230, 2016 WL 6777423 (La. 2016); Parish of Bossier, 26th JDC Div. F, No. 55,362.
Griffin signed the instant writ of habeas corpus on October 26, 2016, and same was
received and filed with this court on October 28, 2016. Doc. 1, p. 14. Herein, he asserts that the
State of Louisiana lacked subject matter jurisdiction and standing, apparently based on his claim
of newly discovered evidence. Id. at 5. As relief, he seeks release from custody, and to have his
underlying conviction dismissed, quashed, set-aside, and expunged. Id. at 14.
II.
Amend Order
Before reaching the merits of a habeas claim, a preliminary review of the pleadings and
exhibits is conducted in order to determine whether the petitioner has exhausted all available
state remedies prior to filing his petition in federal court; whether the petition is time-barred by
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); and, whether any of the claims raised are subject to the
procedural default doctrine.
A.

Exhaustion

-2-

An application for a writ of habeas corpus “shall not be granted unless … the applicant
has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). The
exhaustion doctrine requires a petitioner to present all federal claims to the state court before
requesting federal habeas relief. Whitehead v. Johnson, 17 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 1998). State
prisoners must afford “the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by
invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.” O’Sullivan v.
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). The federal claims should be presented to state courts “in a
procedurally proper manner according to the rules of the state courts.” Dupuy v. Butler, 837 F.2d
699, 702 (5th Cir. 1988).
B. Procedural Default
The procedural default doctrine bars federal habeas corpus review when a state court
declines to address a petitioner’s federal claims because the petitioner has failed to follow or has
been defaulted by a state procedural rule. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729 (1991).
[I]n all cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in
state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule,
federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can
demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as result of the
alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the
claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
Id. at 750. This doctrine ensures that federal courts give proper respect to state procedural rules.
Id. at 750-751.
C. Limitations Period
Federal law imposes a one-year limitation period within which persons who are in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court may seek habeas review in federal court. 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). This limitation period generally runs from the date that the conviction
becomes final. See id. The time during which a properly filed application for post-conviction
-3-

relief is pending in state court is not counted toward the one-year limit. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2);
Ott v. Johnson, 192 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1999). However, the time between the date that the
conviction becomes final and the proper filing of an application for post-conviction relief in state
court is counted. Flanagan v. Johnson, 154 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir.1998). Thus, in order to
determine whether a habeas petition is time-barred under the provisions of section 2244(d), the
court must ascertain: (1) the date upon which the judgment became final either by the
conclusion of direct review or by the expiration of time for seeking further direct review; (2) the
dates during which properly filed petitions for post-conviction or other collateral review were
pending in state court; and (3) the date upon which the petitioner filed his federal habeas corpus
petition.
Based on the pleadings and exhibits filed by Griffin, the court cannot determine whether
the petition should survive initial review.
Therefore,
Griffin is ORDERED to amend his petition within forty (40) days of this order and
provide the followings:
1. A DATED copy of his appeal to the Second Circuit on direct appeal review; in the
event that Griffin is unable to provide a DATED copy of the appeal, he should
provide such other proof as is available to establish the date of filing;
2. A DATED copy of the writ of certiorari filed in the Louisiana Supreme Court on
direct review; in the event that he is unable to provide a DATED copy of the writ
application, he should provide such other proof as is available to establish the date of
filing;
3. A DATED copy of the writ of certiorari denial filed by the Louisiana Supreme Court
on direct review;
4. A DATED copy of the application for post-conviction relief, if any, filed in the
Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court; in the event that he is unable to provide a
DATED copy of the application, he should provide such other proof as is available to
establish the date of filing;
-4-

5. A DATED copy of ALL post-conviction relief denials, if any, by the Twenty-Sixth
Judicial District Court;
6. A DATED copy of ALL applications, if any, to the Second Circuit on postconviction review; in the event that he is unable to provide a DATED copy of the
applications, he should provide such other proof as is available to establish the date of
filing;
7. A DATED copy of ALL of the Second Circuit’s rulings, if any, regarding his
applications for post-conviction relief;
8. A DATED copy of the writ of certiorari, if any, filed in the Louisiana Supreme Court
on post-conviction; in the event that he is unable to provide a DATED copy of the
writ application, he should provide such other proof as is available to establish the
date of filing;
9. A DATED copy of the writ of habeas corpus filed in the Louisiana Supreme Court
on or about June 29, 2016; in the event that he is unable to provide a DATED copy of
the writ application, he should provide such other proof as is available to establish the
date of filing;
10. A DATED copy of ALL documentation filed in the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District
Court or the Second Circuit directly related to the writ of habeas corpus filed in the
Louisiana Supreme Court on or about June 29, 2016; in the event that he is unable to
provide a DATED copy of the documents, he should provide such other proof as is
available to establish the date(s) of filing;
11. Any documentation related to a writ application filed in the Twenty-Sixth Judicial
District Court docketed as No. 55,362.
12. Any other documentation that he claims establishes that the instant habeas corpus
petition should survive initial review.
13. A DATED copy of the writ of certiorari filed in the Louisiana Supreme Court on
direct review; in the event that he is unable to provide a DATED copy of the writ
application, he should provide such other proof as is available to establish the date of
filing;
14. A DATED copy of his application to the Third Circuit on post-conviction review; in
the event that he is unable to provide a DATED copy of the application, he should
provide such other proof as is available to establish the date of filing;
15. A DATED copy of the writ of certiorari filed in the Louisiana Supreme Court on
post-conviction; in the event that he is unable to provide a DATED copy of the writ
-5-

application, he should provide such other proof as is available to establish the date of
filing; and
16. Complete details on the “newly discovered evidence” on which he basis his claims
herein, including but not limited to: what the evidence is; when he discovered the
evidence; and when the evidence could have become known through the exercise of
due diligence.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that with respect to ANY claims which were denied on
the basis of a procedural default, Griffin should submit a response demonstrating that federal
habeas review of any such claims is not barred by the procedural default doctrine, e.g. facts
demonstrating cause and prejudice, a miscarriage of justice, or a specific showing that the
procedural bar applied in this case is not strictly or regularly applied by the state court or was
misapplied in his case.
Griffin may attach any and all documentation which he chooses to his response.

THUS DONE this 28th day of February, 2017.

______________________________________
KAREN L. HAYES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-6-

-7-