Opinion
Civil Action 21-00329-BAJ-RLB
05-03-2023
BRANDON LEBOEUF #441722 v. TIMOTHY HOOPER, ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
BRIAN A. JACKSON JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Before the Court is Petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ Of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), challenging the constitutionality of his 2005 Louisiana conviction of second-degree murder. Through counsel, Petitioner asserts three grounds for relief: (1) denial of due process and ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, due to trial counsel's failure to investigate Petitioner's mental health history, which indicated that he was incompetent; (2) a violation of Napue v. Illinois, based on the State's presentation of false and perjured testimony at trial; and (3) a violation of Brady v. Maryland, based on the State's failure to disclose a law enforcement report containing exculpatory evidence. The State opposes Petitioner's claims, arguing that they are time-barred and procedurally defaulted. (Doc. 5).
The Magistrate Judge has now issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19, the “R&R”), recommending that Petitioner's claims are untimely and procedurally defaulted, and, further, that the Court should deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability (COA). Petitioner objects to the R&R (Doc. 20); the State objects to the R&R in part, seeking “to preserve its disagreement” with the R&R's characterization of when the State first produced “certain evidence” underlying Petitioner's claims (Doc. 21).
Upon de novo review, and having carefully considered Petitioner's Petition, the State's opposition, the state court record, Petitioner's objections, the State's objection, 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 Petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ Of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be and is hereby DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned action be and is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
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 Petition or the correctness of the Court's substantive rulings.
Judgement shall be entered separately.