Arthur Williams v. Darrell Vannoy, et al.

E.D. Louisiana

Arthur Williams v. Darrell Vannoy, et al.

DecidedOctober 29, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00575

StatusUnknown

This text of Arthur Williams v. Darrell Vannoy, et al. (Arthur Williams v. Darrell Vannoy, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arthur Williams v. Darrell Vannoy, et al., (E.D. La. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ARTHUR WILLIAMS CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-575

DARRELL VANNOY, ET AL. SECTION: O (3)

O R D E R Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation1 of the United States Magistrate Judge in which it is recommended that Petitioner Arthur Williams’ application for a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner, pro se, has filed an objection2 to the Report and Recommendation. Construing Petitioner’s “filings liberally because he is a pro se litigant,” Collins v. Dall. Leadership Found., 77 F.4th 327, 330 (5th Cir. 2023) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972)), the Court finds that Petitioner’s objection does not call into question any aspect of the Magistrate Judge’s thorough Report and Recommendation, which—applying the standards of review (provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act) and applicable substantive law—assessed on the merits Petitioner’s claims for ineffective assistance of counsel (due to counsel’s failure to request a sanity commission and alleged failure to allow Petitioner to testify in his criminal trial) and vindictive prosecution. Having conducted a de novo review of that Report and Recommendation

1 ECF No. 13. 2 ECF No. 14. in light of Petitioner’s objection, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court overrules Petitioner’s objection and adopts the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Arthur Williams’s objection to the Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Arthur Williams’s petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of October, 2025. Ae be S BRANDON S. LONG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ARTHUR WILLIAMS CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-575

DARRELL VANNOY, ET AL. SECTION: O (3)

O R D E R Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation1 of the United States Magistrate Judge in which it is recommended that Petitioner Arthur Williams’ application for a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner, pro se, has filed an objection2 to the Report and Recommendation. Construing Petitioner’s “filings liberally because he is a pro se litigant,” Collins v. Dall. Leadership Found., 77 F.4th 327, 330 (5th Cir. 2023) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972)), the Court finds that Petitioner’s objection does not call into question any aspect of the Magistrate Judge’s thorough Report and Recommendation, which—applying the standards of review (provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act) and applicable substantive law—assessed on the merits Petitioner’s claims for ineffective assistance of counsel (due to counsel’s failure to request a sanity commission and alleged failure to allow Petitioner to testify in his criminal trial) and vindictive prosecution. Having conducted a de novo review of that Report and Recommendation

1 ECF No. 13. 2 ECF No. 14. in light of Petitioner’s objection, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court overrules Petitioner’s objection and adopts the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Arthur Williams’s objection to the Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Arthur Williams’s petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of October, 2025. Ae be S BRANDON S. LONG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Arthur Williams v. Darrell Vannoy, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-williams-v-darrell-vannoy-et-al-laed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack