Robertson v. State of Louisiana

M.D. Louisiana

Robertson v. State of Louisiana

DecidedDecember 19, 2023

Docket3:23-cv-00618

StatusUnknown

This text of Robertson v. State of Louisiana (Robertson v. State of Louisiana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robertson v. State of Louisiana, (M.D. La. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DONALD RAY ROBERTSON (#104555) CIVIL ACTION VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 23-00618-BAJ-SDJ

RULING AND ORDER On July 27, 2023, Petitioner, an inmate incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, filed a “civil rights complaint,” which, properly construed, challenges the constitutionality of his ongoing confinement, on the basis that he was not convicted by a unanimous jury. (Doc. 1). The Magistrate Judge has now issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4), which acknowledges the nature of Petitioner’s claim(s), but recommends dismissal on the basis that such claims “may only be pursued in a habeas corpus proceeding,” (id. at 5). Petitioner objects to dismissal, making clear that the relief he seeks is exclusively in the nature of a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See Doc. 5 at 3-5). Petitioner’s original “complaint” is subject to the same liberal pleading standards afforded to all pro se litigants. “Liberal construction … means that the substance of the relief sought by a pro se pleading controls, not the label that the petitioner has attached to it.” Black v. Davis, 902 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 2018)

(quotation marks and alterations omitted). Upon de novo review, the only relief Petitioner seeks is release from prison on the basis that his conviction is unconstitutional, putting Petitioner’s claim squarely within the realm of those that are entitled to review under § 2254. Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235, 243 (5th Cir. 2017). The Report does not consider Petitioner’s claim under the rules applicable to

habeas proceedings. As such, the Court declines to adopt the Report, and will instead refer this matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. 5) is SUSTAINED, and the Court DECLINES to adopt the November 9, 2023 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REFERRED BACK to the

Magistrate Judge, with instructions to construe Petitioner’s “complaint” as a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 19th day of December, 2023

______________________________________ JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DONALD RAY ROBERTSON (#104555) CIVIL ACTION VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 23-00618-BAJ-SDJ

RULING AND ORDER On July 27, 2023, Petitioner, an inmate incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, filed a “civil rights complaint,” which, properly construed, challenges the constitutionality of his ongoing confinement, on the basis that he was not convicted by a unanimous jury. (Doc. 1). The Magistrate Judge has now issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4), which acknowledges the nature of Petitioner’s claim(s), but recommends dismissal on the basis that such claims “may only be pursued in a habeas corpus proceeding,” (id. at 5). Petitioner objects to dismissal, making clear that the relief he seeks is exclusively in the nature of a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See Doc. 5 at 3-5). Petitioner’s original “complaint” is subject to the same liberal pleading standards afforded to all pro se litigants. “Liberal construction … means that the substance of the relief sought by a pro se pleading controls, not the label that the petitioner has attached to it.” Black v. Davis, 902 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 2018)

(quotation marks and alterations omitted). Upon de novo review, the only relief Petitioner seeks is release from prison on the basis that his conviction is unconstitutional, putting Petitioner’s claim squarely within the realm of those that are entitled to review under § 2254. Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235, 243 (5th Cir. 2017). The Report does not consider Petitioner’s claim under the rules applicable to

habeas proceedings. As such, the Court declines to adopt the Report, and will instead refer this matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. 5) is SUSTAINED, and the Court DECLINES to adopt the November 9, 2023 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REFERRED BACK to the

Magistrate Judge, with instructions to construe Petitioner’s “complaint” as a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 19th day of December, 2023

______________________________________ JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Robertson v. State of Louisiana, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robertson-v-state-of-louisiana-lamd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack