Casiano v. Landry

Full title: RUPERT PENA CASIANO #200379 v. JEFF LANDRY

Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana

Date published: Aug 30, 2023

Civil Action 21-00632-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La. Aug. 30, 2023)

Opinion

Civil Action 21-00632-BAJ-SDJ

08-30-2023

RUPERT PENA CASIANO #200379 v. JEFF LANDRY

BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

RULING AND ORDER

BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Before the Court is Petitioner's Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In State Custody (Doc. 8). On October 26, 2021, Petitioner filed his initial application for federal habeas corpus relief, but it was deficient in several aspects. (Doc. 1). On September 1, 2022, the Court sent a notice to Petitioner advising him of certain deficiencies in his petition, and the deadline within which to remedy the deficiencies. (Doc. 2). On January 23, 2023, Petitioner filed the Amended Petition. (Doc. 8).

The Magistrate Judge has now issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15, “the Report”), recommending that Petitioner's amended application for habeas corpus relief be dismissed without prejudice because he failed to correct the deficiencies in his application and because he has not exhausted his available state remedies. (See Doc. 15 at pp. 1-2). The Report further recommends that Petitioner's pending Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (Doc. 11) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 13) be denied. Since the issuance of the Report, Petitioner has filed several pleadings, none of which raise meritorious objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. (Docs. 16-21).

Upon de novo review, and having carefully considered the Amended Petition and related filings, the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and ADOPTS it as the Court's opinion in this matter.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In State Custody (Doc. 8) be and is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to remedy deficiencies and failure to exhaust state remedies.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event Petitioner pursues an appeal in this case, a certificate of appealability be and is hereby DENIED because reasonable jurists would not debate the denial of Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief or the correctness of the Court's procedural rulings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's pending Motions (Docs. 11, 13, 17, and 19) be and are hereby DENIED.

Judgment shall be issued separately.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 30^th day of August, 2023