Opinion
Civil Action 23-005 34-B A J-EWD
07-12-2024
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. FLOYD HARRIS
RULING AND ORDER
BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DTSTRICT COURT JUDGE
On July 10, 2023, Petitioner, an inmate incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which, properly construed, challenges the constitutionality of his ongoing confinement because he was not convicted by a unanimous jury. (Doc. 1). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that acknowledged the nature of Petitioner's claims and recommended dismissal on the basis that such claims “may only be pursued in a habeas corpus proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. §2254, not in a civil rights action pursuant to §1983. (Doc. 4 at 4). Petitioner objected to dismissal, contending that “his claim enjoys the [duality] of being cognizant under [both] 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and [42] U.S.C. § 1983” because Louisiana is the only state that operates under civil law, thus affording him rights under both the U.S. Constitution and the Louisiana Constitution. (Doc. 5 at 2). As noted by the Magistrate Judge, challenges to the constitutionality of a state court conviction may only be brought by way of a habeas petition. Williams v. Dallas Cnty. Comm'rs, 689 F.2d 1212, 1214 (5th Cir. 1982).
Upon de novo review, and having carefully considered Petitioner's Complaint, the Report, and Petitioner's objections, the Court APPROVES the Report and ADOPTS it as the Court's opinion in this matter.
Petitioner is advised that construing the complaint as a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 would be futile because the United States Supreme Court has held that the unanimous jury requirement announced in Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S.Ct. 1390 (2020), is not retroactive. Edwards v. Vannoy, 141 S.Ct. 1547 (2021).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's constitutional claims be and are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs potential state law claims.
Judgment shall issue separately.