Bah v. United States

Opinion

Southern District of Texas UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ENTERED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS October 09, 2024 BROWNSVILLE DIVISION Nathan Ochsner, Clerk MUHAMED PATHE BAH, § “Petitioner,” § Vv. : Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00166 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : “The Government.” § ORDER Before the Court is the “Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 48) and Petitioner’s “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s R&R” (“Objections”) (Dkt. No. 49). The Magistrate recommended that this Court: “(1) GRANT the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Bah’s first and second claims; (2) DISMISS all three of Bah’s claims; (3) DECLINE to issue a certificate of appealability; and (4) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to close this case” Dkt. No. 48. Upon a de novo review, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 48). L BACKGROUND On June 26, 2020, Petitioner robbed a bank in Harlingen, Texas, during which he shot a bank teller in the head. Dkt. No. 4 at 8-9. Later, a grand jury indicted Petitioner on one count of robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d} (“Count One”) and one count of use of a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)Gii} (“Count Two”). Dkt. No. 3 at 97. Ultimately, this Court sentenced Petitioner to twenty-five years’ incarceration on Count One and life imprisonment on Count Two. CR Dkt. No. 80 at 24-25.! Now seeking habeas relief, Petitioner claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his sentencing. Dkt. No. 3 at 2-3. He argues that his counsel fatled: (1) “to present mitigating evidence to explain Bah’s history of mental illness”; (2) “to object to make fundamental objections to . . . Bah’s case”; and (3) “to present all formal plea offers.” Jd. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW If a party objects to a magistrate’s ruling, the district court will review that determination de novo. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).

' The Court references the docket in this § 2255 action using the “Dkt.” designation. The Court references the docket in Petitioner’s underlying criminal cause, No. 1:20-cr-00433-1, using the “CR Dkt.” designation.

Iii. DISCUSSION Petitioner first objects to the Magistrate’s finding that “Bah’s family members reached out to Counsel to be involved in and fo request notice of Bah’s sentencing date.” Dkt. No. 48 at 10 (emphasis added). Upon review of the record, this Court finds that Petitioner’s family tried to contact counsel to get involved with Petitioner’s case but agrees that it is unclear whether they also requested notice of his sentencing date.? Thus, Objection One is SUSTAINED. Petitioner next objects to the Magistrate’s finding that “the Court possessed the PSR, which included, among other things, information gleaned from interviews with Bah’s mother and sister summarizing Bah’s mental health history.” Dkt. No. 48 at 19 (emphasis added). Petitioner claims there is error as Probation never received mental health information from Petitioner’s mother. Yet the PSR states that his “personal and family history was corroborated by... his mother, Satoumata Binta Miller, on August 5, 2021, via a telephonic interview.” Dkt. No. 4, at 19 7 67. Thus, the Court finds no error, Objection Two is OVERRULED. Petitioner’s third Objection 1s that the Magistrate erroneously applied a summary judgment standard to a § 2255 habeas action. Dkt. No. 49 at 2. As Petitioner notes, however, the Fifth Circuit approves the use of summary judgment for these types of cases. Randle v. Scott, 43 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 1995). Thus, the Court finds no error. Objection Three is OVERRULED. Petitioner’s fourth Objection relies on a finding that the Magistrate erred with Objection Three. The Court found no error. Objection Four is OVERRULED. Petitioner’s next objection is that the Magistrate erred when granting summary judgment on his first ineffective assistance claim because “there is a genuine issue of material fact about whether trial counsel was deficient for failing to investigate... mitigation evidence.” Dkt. No 49 at 4 (emphasis added). Petitioner misstates the standard though because whether counsel performance is deficient is a legal determination, not an issue of fact. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). Moreover, the underlying material facts that the Magistrate considered in making this determination were undisputed. Finding no error with the Magistrate’s analysis, Objection Five is OVERRULED. Objection Six is OVERRULED; it merely reiterates the same argument related to Petitioner’s second and third ineffective assistance claims.

2 The Court notes this for the sake of an accurate record. This finding does not change the Court’s final judgment.

After reviewing the evidence, the Magistrate found that Petitioner failed to make a “substantial showing of denial” of his right to effective assistance of counsel, which is required to issue such a certificate. See generally Dkt. No. 48; see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Objection Seven is OVERRULED because “reasonable jurists” would agree that the Magistrate carefully analyzed that Petitioner’s counsel’s performance was reasonable. See Miller- El, 537 U.S. at 336 (citing standard for certificate of appealability). Petitioner’s eighth Objection is that the Magistrate misapplied the standard governing the reasonableness of Petitioner’s counsel’s performance. Dkt. No. 49 at 7. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the Magistrate did not properly hold Petitioner’s previous counsel to their duty of □ investigating mitigating evidence. Jd. Upon a de novo review, the Court finds no error with either counsel or the Magistrate’s application of law. Objection Eight is OVERRULED. IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Petitioner’s Objections (Dkt. No. 49) are OVERRULED (except for Objection 1, which does not affect this order).. The R&R (Dkt. No. 48) is ADOPTED. The Court GRANTS the Government’s “Motion for Summary Judgment and Response” (Dkt. No. 16) as to Petitioner’s first and second claims and DISMISSES with prejudice all three of his claims. A certificate of appealability is DENIED, and the Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to close this case.

Signed on this yeh day of ( Yotehes- , 2024,

nited States District Judge