JAMES GRAYER 338665 v. LIZ MURRILL ET AL (2026)

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

NOTICE

Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.

ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on June 24, 2026.

This matter comes before the Court on the petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 19, 2024, the pro se petitioner, an inmate confined at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana, filed this habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, attacking his 1993 criminal conviction and sentence entered in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. The petitioner asserts that the Louisiana Supreme Court erred in considering the State's writ application.

Procedural History

On November 22, 2021, the state trial court granted the petitioner's Application for Post-Conviction Relief finding that Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020) applied retroactively to the petitioner. See R. Doc. 1, p. 16. The State sought supervisory writs, but the writ was not considered since the State failed to timely request a return date as required by the Uniform Rules for Louisiana Courts of Appeals. See R. Doc. 1, p. 17. On September 6, 2023, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the State's writ, vacated the trial court's ruling granting post-conviction relief, and reinstated the petitioner's conviction and sentence. See R. Doc. 1, p. 18.

Applicable Law and Analysis

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases authorizes the district court to examine and dismiss non-meritorious and frivolous habeas corpus petitions. Kiser v. Johnson, 163 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 1999). Thus, it is the duty of the court to screen out frivolous applications and eliminate the burden that would be placed on the respondent by ordering an unnecessary answer. Id. at 328. Review of the instant petition plainly establishes that petitioner is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 for the following reasons.

Consideration and Grant of the State's Writ

Petitioner asserts that the Louisiana Supreme Court erred when it considered and granted the State's writ when the First Circuit Court of Appeals did not consider the State's writ due to the State's failure to seek a return date. In Matthieu v. Cain, 2010 WL 436646 (W.D. La. Aug. 19, 2010), the petitioner claimed that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it permitted the State to obtain supervisory review even though the time limitation for seeking such review under the Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal and other Louisiana laws had expired. The court concluded that the petitioner's claim alleged only a violation of Louisiana state law and therefore failed to state a claim for which federal habeas relief may be granted. The court noted:

Federal law is clear—federal courts do not sit as “super” state supreme courts to review errors under state law. Skillern v. Estelle, 720 F.2d 839, 852 (5th Cir.1983); Cronnon v. State of Alabama, 587 F.2d 246, 250 (5th Cir. 1979) (and cases cited therein). It is not the province of a federal habeas court to determine if the state courts properly applied state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. at 68, 112 S.Ct. at 480; Narvaiz, 134 F.3d at 695. Rather, “[f]ederal habeas corpus review is limited to errors of constitutional dimension․ ” Castillo v. Johnson, 141 F.3d 218, 222 (5th Cir. 1998).

Thus, in federal habeas corpus proceedings, the question is not whether the state court erred or whether state law had been transgressed, but whether there has been a violation of the petitioner's rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 102 S.Ct. 1558 (1983); Bailey v. Procunier, 744 F.2d 1166, 1168 (5th Cir. 1984); Bridge v. Lynaugh, 838 F.2d 770, 772 (5th Cir. 1988) (errors of state law and procedure are not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings unless they result in a violation of a federal constitutional right).

The Fifth Circuit has therefore articulated, on numerous occasions, that the failure of a state to follow its own rules of procedure is not grounds for relief in federal habeas actions. Lavernia v. Lynaugh, 845 F.2d 493, 496 (5th Cir. 1988) (“[f]ederal habeas courts are without authority to correct simple misapplications of state criminal law or procedure ․”); Manning v. Warden, 786 F.2d 710, 711–12 (5th Cir. 1986) (“whether the state followed its own procedure is not the concern of a federal habeas court․”); Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990) (“[F]ederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.”); Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984) (“A federal court may not issue the writ [of habeas corpus ] on the basis of a perceived error of state law.”).

Id. at *4. Similarly, in Burge v. Cain, 2015 WL 4168111 (E.D. La. July 1, 2015), the petitioner asserted that the First Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it considered the State's untimely appellant brief and vacated the trial court's order granting his motion to correct an illegal sentence. In finding that habeas relief was not warranted, the court reasoned:

Therefore, the crux of petitioner's argument is that the state courts misapplied state procedural law in the handling of the state's appeal. Of course, mere errors by the state courts in applying their own law are generally insufficient to warrant federal habeas relief. See, e.g., Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1983); Nyberg v. Cain, Civ. Action No. 15–98, 2015 WL 1540423, at *5 (E.D. La. Apr. 7, 2015). Instead, federal relief is warranted only where the errors of state law result in a denial of the fundamental fairness to which a petitioner is separately entitled under federal law. See, e.g., Cobble v. Smith, 154 Fed. App'x 447, 454 (6th Cir. 2005) (“In other words, only an error of state law that denies ‘fundamental fairness’ such that due process is violated supports a federal habeas corpus claim.”). Here, petitioner alleges such a denial of fundamental fairness.

However, even if this Court were to assume that the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal failed to follow proper procedures in adjudicating the state's appeal, petitioner had, and in fact availed himself of, further recourse, i.e. seeking review by the Louisiana Supreme Court. Because he was afforded a meaningful opportunity to have his challenge to the Court of Appeal's action heard and reviewed by the Louisiana Supreme Court, his right to procedural due process was adequately protected. Cf. Norris v. Schotten, 146 F.3d 314, 329 (6th Cir. 1998) (“Even assuming that the state trial court acted arbitrarily and deviated from proper procedures in denying appellant's motion to discharge, any insufficiency in procedural due process was cured through the appellate review process that was available to appellant and which appellant took advantage of. In requesting federal habeas relief, appellant has not claimed and offers no proof that the Ohio court system as a whole is arbitrary and lacks a rational mechanism/process for remedying errors. Thus, we find appellant's due process argument to be unconvincing.” (citation omitted)); Robinson v. LeBlanc, Civ. Action No. 04–1285, 2008 WL 506151, at *8 (E.D. La. Feb. 21, 2008) (“To the extent that state rules of appellate procedure were allegedly not complied with, Robinson's recourse was to bring those alleged failures to the attention of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit or the Louisiana Supreme Court. However, those alleged failures do not become errors of constitutional magnitude simply because they were decided adversely to Robinson.”).

Id. at *7. Here, the petitioner alleges that the Louisiana Supreme Court violated his right to due process when it considered and granted the State's writ which had not been considered by the First Circuit Court of Appeal due to the State's failure to seek a return date. As noted above, mere errors by the state courts in applying their own law are generally insufficient to warrant federal habeas relief. Assuming, without finding, that the petitioner was entitled to due process with regard to the procedures employed by the Louisiana Supreme Court,¹ any error in the proceedings was cured through the availability of further appellate review. The Louisiana Supreme Court rules allow for a party to apply for rehearing. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule X, § 7. A party may additionally apply to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. Petitioner herein took advantage of further appellate review by requesting reconsideration with the Louisiana Supreme Court. See R. Doc. 1-2, p. 5. The fact that resolution of his request was unfavorable to him is not an error of constitutional magnitude that would entitle the petitioner to habeas relief. As such, the petition is without merit.

Certificate of Appealability

Should the petitioner pursue an appeal, a certificate of appealability should also be denied. An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding “unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Although the petitioner has not yet filed a Notice of Appeal herein, the Court may address whether he would be entitled to a certificate of appealability. See Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000). A certificate of appealability may issue only if a habeas petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In cases where the Court has rejected a petitioner's constitutional claims on procedural grounds, a petitioner must demonstrate that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of a denial of constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Ruiz v. Quarterman, 460 F.3d 638, 642 (5th Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original). In the instant case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not debate the denial of the petitioner's § 2254 application or the correctness of the procedural ruling. Accordingly, it is appropriate that, in the event that the petitioner seeks to pursue an appeal in this case, a certificate of appealability should be denied.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief be denied, with prejudice and that the petitioner's pending motions (R. Docs. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8) be denied as moot. It is further recommended that, in the event that the petitioner seeks to pursue an appeal, a certificate of appealability be denied.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on June 24, 2026.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The grant or denial of an application for writs rests within the sound judicial discretion of the Court. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule X, § 1.

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE