Withers v. State of Louisiana

• Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana
• Decided: July 12, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00565
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MICHAEL W. WITHERS (#292464) CIVIL ACTION VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 23-00565-BAJ-EWD RULING AND ORDER On July 19, 2023, Petitioner, an inmate incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 which, properly construed, challenges the constitutionality of his ongoing confinement because he was not convicted by a unanimous jury. (Doc. 1). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that acknowledged the nature of Petitioner’s claims and recommended dismissal on the basis that such claims “may only be pursued in a habeas corpus proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” (Doc. 4 at 4). Petitioner objected to dismissal, asserting that “the [Magistrate Judge] contends that Withers’ claims call into question the validity of his confinement.” (Doc. 5 at 1). Petitioner asserts that “extraordinary circumstances are present and warrant federal intervention” and makes several constitutional challenges. (Id.). As noted by the Magistrate Judge, challenges to the constitutionality of a state court conviction may only be brought by way of a habeas petition. Williams v. Dallas Cnty. Comm'rs, 689 F.2d 1212, 1214 (5th Cir. 1982). Upon de novo review, and having carefully considered Petitioner’s Complaint, the Report, and Petitioner’s objections, the Court APPROVES the Report and

ADOPTS it as the Court’s opinion in this matter.! Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s constitutional claims be and are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs potential state law claims. Judgment shall issue separately. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this □□ ay of July, 2024

JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

' Petitioner is advised that interpreting the complaint as a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 would be futile because the United States Supreme Court has held that the unanimous jury requirement announced in Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020), is not retroactive. Edwards v. Vannoy, 141 S. Ct. 1547 (2021).