Conner v. Warden

Opinion

a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION ALBERTUS CONNER JR #50640, CIVIL DOCKET NO. 5:24-CV-00645 Petitioner SEC P VERSUS CHIEF JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY WARDEN, MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES Respondent REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by pro se Petitioner Albertus Conner, Jr. (“Conner”). Conner is a pretrial

detainee at the Caddo Parish Correctional Center in Shreveport, Louisiana. He challenges his arrest and pending charges. Because Conner’s Petition is duplicative, and he cannot obtain monetary relief through habeas corpus, the Petition should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. I. Background Conner alleges that he was wrongfully arrested and charged with possession

of a firearm by a convicted felon on April 29, 2023. ECF No. 5. He asks that evidence be suppressed, and the charges dropped. ECF No. 5. Conner also seeks monetary compensation. ECF No. 8. II. Law and Analysis Conner previously filed a habeas petition challenging the same arrest and criminal prosecution, which remains pending. , 5:24-CV-0268 (W.D. La.), ECF No. 4. A complaint that duplicates claims asserted in an earlier case may be summarily dismissed. , 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993); , 878 F.2d 846, 849 (5th Cir. 1989),

, 493 U.S. 969 (1989). This principle applies to petitions for writ of habeas corpus. , 6:20-CV-251, 2020 WL 3239936, at *1 (E.D. Tex. 2020), , 2020 WL 3172701 (E.D. Tex. 2020); , 2003 WL 21418792 (N.D. Tex. 2003); , 2006 WL 3478030 (N.D. Tex. 2006). Therefore, this second habeas petition should be dismissed as duplicative of case number 5:24-CV-268.

Additionally, Conner cannot obtain monetary relief through a habeas corpus action. , 411 U.S. 475, 498 (1973) (“In the case of a damages claim, habeas corpus is not an appropriate or available federal remedy.”); , 2023 WL 3575658, at *3 (E.D. Tex. 2023) (claims for money damages sound in civil rights rather than habeas), , 2023 WL 3573538 (E.D. Tex. 2023). III. Conclusion

Because Conner’s Petition is duplicative and he seeks unavailable relief, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), a party may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service, unless the Court grants an extension of time to file objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may also respond to another party’s objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service of those objections, again unless the Court grants an extension of time to file a response to objections. No other briefs may be filed without leave of court, which will only be granted for good cause. A party’s failure to timely file written objections to this Report and Recommendation will bar a party from later challenging factual or legal conclusions adopted by the District Judge, except if the challenge asserts “plain error.” SIGNED on Friday, August 9, 2024. J Hifle JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE