In Re: Aaron Gentras

666 F.3d 910, 2012 WL 19375, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 61
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 4, 2012
Docket11-30937
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 666 F.3d 910 (In Re: Aaron Gentras) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re: Aaron Gentras, 666 F.3d 910, 2012 WL 19375, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 61 (5th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Aaron Gentras, Louisiana prisoner # 129938, has requested authorization to file a second 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application in federal district court. Gentras was convicted of cocaine possession and was sen *911 tenced to 50 years of imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation or suspension of sentence. He seeks to argue that his constitutional rights were violated when the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal used flawed procedures to review his state petitions for postconviction review. He also wishes to challenge the ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court, made after his first § 2254 application was decided, transferring his case to the state Fifth Circuit for review by a panel of that court. Finally, he suggests that he wants to reurge the claims he raised in his first § 2254 application. He seeks to raise these claims now based on new facts regarding purportedly improper procedures the state Fifth Circuit used to decide pro se postconviction petitions and the remedial procedures the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted in response.

Infirmities in state postconviction proceedings are not grounds for relief under § 2254. See Moore v. Dretke, 369 F.3d 844, 846 (5th Cir.2004). Thus, none of Gentras’s proposed challenges to the Louisiana courts’ procedures for addressing postconviction petitions states a claim that is cognizable on federal habeas review. Additionally, to the extent that Gentras wishes to raise the same claims that he brought in his previous § 2254 application, he may not do so. See § 2244(b)(1).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Gentras’s motion for authorization to file a successive § 2254 application is DENIED.

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

Related

In Re: Isaias Palacios
58 F.4th 189 (Fifth Circuit, 2023)
Logan v. State of Mississippi
N.D. Mississippi, 2021
In Re: Charlie Stewart
Fifth Circuit, 2021
Chris Gilkers v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden
904 F.3d 336 (Fifth Circuit, 2018)
Donald Blanton v. Lorie Davis, Director
688 F. App'x 260 (Fifth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
666 F.3d 910, 2012 WL 19375, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-aaron-gentras-ca5-2012.