Herman Woods v. Warden

• Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
• Decided: October 7, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00553
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHREVEPORT DIVISION

HERMAN WOODS CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-553-P

VERSUS CHIEF JUDGE DOUGHTY

WARDEN MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation. STATEMENT OF CLAIM Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by pro se petitioner Herman Woods, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. This petition was received and filed in this court on April 21, 2025. Petitioner is incarcerated in the Union Parish Detention Center in Farmerville, Louisiana. He challenges his state court conviction and sentence. He names the Warden as respondent. On February 2, 2023, Petitioner pleaded guilty to second degree battery in the Louisiana First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo, and was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Petitioner raises the following grounds in support of his petition: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of guilty; (2) he is not guilty; (3) he has not received credit for time served; and (4) his rights were not explained to him. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner's application for habeas relief should be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. LAW AND ANALYSIS

Habeas corpus relief is available to a person who is in custody "in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, the right to pursue habeas relief in federal court is not unqualified. It is well settled that a petitioner seeking federal habeas corpus relief cannot collaterally attack his state court conviction in federal court until he has exhausted all available state remedies. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198 (1982); Minor v. Lucas, 697 F.2d 697 (5th Cir. 1983). This requirement is not a jurisdictional bar but a procedural one erected in the interest of comity providing state courts first opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged constitutional violations. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275, 92 S.Ct. 509, (1971); Rose, 455 U.S. at 509, 102 S. Ct. at 1198. Moreover, in the event that the record or the

habeas corpus petition, on its face, reveals that the petitioner has not complied with the exhaustion requirement, a United States district court is expressly authorized to dismiss the claim. See Resendez v. McKaskle, 722 F.2d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 1984). Petitioner has not exhausted his available state court remedies as to the claims presented in this petition. Petitioner provides this court with a ruling from the Supreme

Court of Louisiana in which his application for supervisory writ was not considered because he failed to demonstrate that he sought review in the lower courts and failed to show “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify bypassing review by the lower Page 2 of 4 courts. State v. Woods, 2023-1032 (La. 10/10/23), 370 So.3d 1083. Thus, Petitioner did not exhaust his state court remedies prior to filing his petition in this court. Accordingly;

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. OBJECTIONS Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and

Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court, unless an extension of time is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may respond to another party’s objection within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Counsel are directed to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the District Judge at the time of filing.

A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations set forth above, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking, on appeal, the proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and that were not objected to by the aforementioned party. See Douglas v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d

1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from a final order in a proceeding under Section 2254 unless a circuit justice, circuit judge, or district judge issues a certificate Page 3 of 4 of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); F.R.A.P. 22(b). Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the U.S. District Courts requires the district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A certificate may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Section 2253(c)(2). A party may, within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Report and Recommendation, file a memorandum that sets forth arguments on whether a certificate of appealability should issue. THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 7th day of October 2025. Mark L. Hornsby U.S. Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4