APR à12006 UNTIED STÀTES DISTRICT COIJRT *,*n?#*t,t'*t...

Case 1 :06-cv-00463-JpK. . Document 6 Filed 04/2112006 Page 1 of 6

,F[F,FIJ,F,?^APR à1"2006

*,*n?#*t,t'*tUNTIED STÀTES DISTRICT COIJRT

!|ES?EP.}I DISTRICT O!' ],OUISIÀNÀ

ÀI.E:KÀ}IDRIÀ DTVIsION

VINCENT À. SIMI.ÍoIISLa . Doc , No . 85144

vs.

BT'RL CÀIN, IíÀRDEN

cÍvrl ÀcTroN No. 06-0{63

SECTION P

.'I'DGE LITTI,E

!{AGISIRÀIE i'UDGE KTRK

REPORT À}ID RECOIII.IEI{DÀT TON

Befo re the coL l r t i s a pêL i t i on fo r ! r ! i t a f habeas co rp , r s (28

U .S .C . S 2254 ) f i l ed on March 13 , 2006 . Th i s pe t i t - i on was f i l ed

on beha l f o f V incen t A , S i Ínnons by h j - s a t to rney , Ms . Lêu r ie A .

, . . ' , = A . Wh ice and Assoc ia tes , New Or Ieans ,

Lou is iana . Pe t i t i one r i s an i nna te i n t he cus tody o f t hê

Lou ls iana Dêpar tmen t o f Co r rec t i ons ; he i s i nca rce ra têd a t t he

Lou is iana S ta te Pên i tênÈ ia ry , Ango Ia , Lou is iana ehe le he i s

se rv -nq consecu r i ve f i f Ly yea r seDLences i nposed t o l l ow ing h i s

19 l l agg rava ted rapê conv i c t i ons i n t he T l tê I f t h Jud j " c ia l D i s t r i c t

À . , ^ t , Ê t t ê q D à r i s l . " . , s n - r i - ' ó - . L Á 1 1 ^ - d Ê s , - ^ ' 9 1 1

conv rc taons .

Th rs mê ! ! ' e r has been re Íe r Íeo Lo Lhe unders igned Ío r rev iêw ,

report, and recoardendation in accoldancê with the provisions of

28 U .S .C , 5636 anC the s tand ing o rdê rs o f l he cou r t . Fo r t he

fo lLow ing l easons , i t i s reconmended thà t t he pe t i t i on be

Case 1:06-cv-00463-JDK Document 6 Filed 04/2112006 Page 2 of 6

DXSUISSED.

STÀTEI'ENT OF rHE CÀ.sE

Pe t i t i one r a t tacked these same conv i c t i ons i n a pê t i t i on fo r

{r i t of àabêés corpus f i led ln this court on or about Apri l 8,

1991 . See V incen t A . S inmons v . Bu r f Ca ln , Warden , No . 1 :91 -cv -

1115 . IS inmons I ] Th i s pe t i t i on was d i smíssed w j . t h p re lud i ce on

the mer i t s ón Februa ry L2 , 1993 . l s ! Í unons I , doc . 21 ] Tha !

judgnent was aff irmed by the Fifth Crrcuit Court of Appeals on

March 23 , 1994 . IS inunons I , doc . 25 ]

0n SepteÍnbêr I6, 1996, petj. t ioner sought permission from the

Fifth Circuit Court of Appêals to f i le a second and successive

pêtrt ion for habeas corpus. On October: 10, 1996 his mot.t-on was

den ied . See In Rê : S in rmons , No . 96 -267 (unpub l i shed ) - [S i Í unons ï I ]

LÀW ÀIID À}IÀIYSIS

Th is pe t i t i on i s sub jec t t o t he sc reen ing p r :ov i s ions se t ou t

i n 28 U-S .C . S 2244 lb l (3 ) (A ) r rh i ch p r :ov idês tha t a sècond o r

success i vê S 2254 habêas pe t r t i on mus t be ce r t . i f i ed by a pane l ó f

thê appropriate court of appeals before i t can be heard rn the

d i s t r i c t cou ! t , See I n r e Epps , 127 F ,3d 364 (5 th C i r - 1997 ) ; see

also .I l ]_lc__!_q-l-Lig.e!, 97 F.3d 89, 90 (5th cir.1996) (addressing a

sirniLar provision applicàble to second or successive mot-ions

pu rsuan t t o 28 U .S .C . S 2255 ) . I n FeLke r v , Tu rp in , 518 U .S . 651 ,

663 -64 (1996) , t he Supreme Cour t obse rved tha t t he amendmen ts to

S 2244 "s imp ly t rans fe r f rom the d i s t r l c t cou rL to the cou r t o f

Case I ;06-cv-00463-JDK Document 6 Filed 0412112006 Page 3 of 6

appea ls a sc reen ing func t i on wh ich wou ld p rêv ious l y have been

pe r fo rmed by t he d i s t r i c t cou r t as r êqu i rec t by . . . RuLe 9 (b ) . , .

I n t h i s pe t i t i on , S i Íunons c la ims tha t hê Í , as " . . . den ied h i s

r i gh t t o a fa i . r t r . i aL and h i s l i gh t t o due p rocess o f l dw . . .

\ .rhen the prosecution withhe.td extensive exculpatory materiaf from

the de fense , i nc fud ing (1 ) t he v i c t im ,s s ta temen ts to the poL ice

imÍ ied ia te l y f o l l ow íng the repo r t i ng o f t he a f l eged c r ime , (2 ) t he

lesu l t s o f t he v i c t im ,s s ra te -o . rde red óen ta l f xamina t i on , and (3 )!!------l

t he Àvoye l l es Pa r i sh Sher i f f , s O f f i ce Supp lemen ta l Repor t . , , l doc .

1 -3 , p . 9 l He a l so cLa ims t ha t he ' . . . .was den ied h i s r i gh t t o a

fa i ! t r i a l and due p rocess o f l aw . . . when he was sub jecceo co an

undu ly sugges t i ve l i nêup p rocêdur :e . , , i j d . , p . 1? l He a l so c la ims

tha t he " . . , wás den ied h i s r l gh t t o e f fêc t i ve ass i s tance o f

counse f . , . i n t ha t numerous i nc idên ts o f i ne f fec t i venêss : I ed to

a màn i f ês t absence ó f counse l . 7 / l i d - , p . 2A l F i na l l y , hê cLa ins

tha t " , . . t he d i s l r r c t . cou r t e t ted i n deny Íng . . . t ha t pe t i t i one r

was i nd i c ted by an uncons t i t u t i ona l l y appo in ted c rand Ju ry i n

La faye t t e Pa r i sh . . . " t j d . , p . 331

rPel i l ioner c la i rns lhar counsê1 was inef ÍecLive because he fáa1ed:

( r ) t o q u à s h ! h ê i n d i c t f t e n ! o n E q u a 1 l l o r ê c i i o n q r o u n d s l i d . , 9 . 2 3 l t 1 2 ) r óf i l e a n y p r e - t r Í à l n o t l o n s I i d , ] ; ( 3 ) t o c o n d u c t e n i n v e s r l g a t i o n I i d . , p . 2 5 ] ;( 4 ) t o ê Í f e c t i v e t y c r o s s - e x a n i n e t h ê a l t e q e d v i c r i n s I i d . , ó . Z O I ; t s ) t oi m p e a c h t h e S l a ! e ' s l e b u r t à t l r i r n e s s € s t i d . l ; ( 6 ) r o o b j e c ! r o t b êr n t r o d u c t i o n ó f p r e j ' r d i c i a l , ' o t h e r c r i n e s , , e v i d ê n c ê t r d . , p . 2 ? l ; ( r ) r o b r i e fa ] l i s s u e s r a i s e d o n d i r ê c r a p p e a l l i d . , p . 2 9 l j ( 8 ) r o o b i € c r È o r h ea n e n d r n e n t o f r h e i n d i c h ê n r a n d t h ê ê b s e n c e o r r e - a r r a r g n m è n t t r d . , p . 3 0 1 ;(9) to f i le a Mot lon to Quash based on the unwarrànted árnêndnent of theo r i g i n a l B i I l o f I n d j c r h ê n t t j d . , p . 3 1 1 ; à n d . ( 1 0 ) r o p r e p a r e p ê t i t i o n e r r óÈ e s t i f y I j d . , p . 3 2 ]

Case 1 :06-cv-00463-J DK Document 6 Filed 0412112006 Page 4 of 6

A subseqLren t pe t i t i on i s second o r success i ve when i t

" ra i ses a c la im cha l l eng ing the pe t i t i one r , s conv i c t i on o ,

sen tence tha t was o r cou ld have beên ra i . sed i n an ea r f i e r

pe t i t j , on , o r o the rw ise cons t i t u tes an abuse o f t hê wr i t . , , &__ lC

eê j ! / 137 F .3d 234 t 235 (S th C r r . 199B)

In the i ns tan t pe t i t i on , pe t i t j - onê r admj , t s t há t he f i . I ed a

p rev ious fede ra l hàbeas co rpus pe t i t i on and , t ha t hê p rev ious l y

sought and was denied permission to f iLê a second hábêás corDus

pe t r - t i on . I doc , 1 -1 , p . 13 , pa rag raph 14 ] . However , he does no t

expl-ain how his present petttton is not second Or successave as

de f i ned above t no r does he a rgue tha t t he p resen t c fa ims shou ld

be ad jud i ca ted because they mee t t he requ i remen ts o f

52244(b ) (2 ) (À ) o r (B ) - ' ?

i l i ^ h ê r l ê - ! , o r ^ F r r ^

I acks j u r i sd i c t j - on to cons ide r

v r h p p e d r s ! r r s L

t he p resen t pe t j . t i on , t h i s cou r t

i t . Hooke r v . S i v l ev , 187 F .3d

S ta tes v , KeV , 205 F .3d l ?3 ,

UnLess and un t i l " t he F i f t h

684| 682 (5Ln c i r .1999) ; -UD i t€d 114

' s e c l i o n 2 2 4 4 ( b ) { 2 ) p r o v i d è s : À c t a i n p r ê s ê n r e d i n a s e c o n d o rsuccessive l rábeés corpus appl ica l ion mder sect ion 2254 Í : ]nat wàs no! presenaecrin a pr ior appl icat ion shal ] be d ishissed unless -

(À) thê appi icant shoers tbaL the cLain ret ies on a new !u]e of consr i tur ionallaw. made ret roacr ive to cases on co! l .a tera l rev iê, by !hê Suprenê Cóurt , tharqas prêviously unavai lablêr or(B) ( i l the fac!ual p!êdicàtê for the c la1n could not have been d iscoveredpreviously through thê êxèrc ise of due d l l igênce; and/ i i ) the fàcts under ly ing the c la im, i f provên and v iêwêd in l i .ght of rhêevidence as a rhole, would be suf f ic ienr to establ ish by c lèar and convrncr .qêuldence that , but for const i tu t iooàl error , no reasonáble facr f inder wêutdhave founcl thê àppl icant gui l ty of the undel ly ing óf fênse.

Case 1:06-cv-00463-JDK Document 6 Filed 0412112006 Page 5 of6

( 5 th c i r . 2000 ) .

In I r Re Eobs . ! 27 E .3d 364 (5 .h C i r . 1997) , t he F i f t h

Circuit adopted a specif ic procedure to be employed when a

slrccessive petit ion is f irst f i led in a dj.st l ict court Dy a pro

se l i t igant. Epp€ implies that the Lransfet of successive àa_beas

corpus pêtÍt ions to the Eifth Ci!cuit for consideratioo unde!

52244 í s pxoper . However , i n t h i s case , pe t i t i one r i s rêp resen ted

by counsel who has implicit ly acknon ledged the succeêsive nature

o f t he p roceed ing . l see doc . 1 -1 , p . 13 , pa rag raph 14 ]

Therefore, the under.signêd concLudes that thj.s petrt lon

shou fd be dasmissed ,

If IS RECOÈO,ENE)ED that petit ioner,s second and successive

Appfj.cation for Wrjt of l iàbeas Corpus be DfSMISSED bêêeuse

petÍt ioner hês not f irst obtained tbe pernission of the Unitêd

States Pifth Ci.rcuit Court of Àppeals as required by the

p rov i s i ons o f 28 U .S .C . 52244 (b ) ( 3 ) .

Undêr the p rov i s ions o f 28 U .S .C . Sêc r ion 636 (b ) (1 ) (C ) and

RuIe ?2(b), part ies aggrieved by this recomrnendation have ten

(10) businêss days fron selvice of this report and reconunenoat.ron

to f i l e spec j . f i c , w r i t t en ob jec t i ons h , i t h t he C lê rk o f Cour t . A

pè r t y may respond to ano thê r pa r t y , s ob jec t j . ons w l th in tên í10 )

dêys after bêing selved laith a copy of any objectione o! resDonse

to the distr ict judge at the t j .me of f i l ing.

Failurê to f,il. rrittau objecLions to thê psopos.d fscturl

Case 1:06-cv-00463-JDK Document 6 Flled 0412112006Page 6 of 6

findings and/or Èhê l)Eopoged l.gal, êonêlusions .êflccèeal ilr èhis

RèI'orÈ and R€coDdqad.tioB lritlia tEb {10) days f,ouorrihg thê drtê

of its sêrvic€, or sitJtin the tlea fra!6 aueh0rired by

f€d..R.Ciw,P. 6(b), ehatl ba! aÀ aggrièved party froD rttaêking

eitlr€r the faoèuat findingr or the lêEa,I

coBclusions a,êcêptèd by the Di!èaiêt CourÈ/ axcêpt upon glouÀal,

of plain êrror. Sê.,

À rsoc ia t i ob , 79 F .3d

Yo f

1415 (s tb C i r , 1996) .

6igned I in ehaobers, Àleraan&ir, Louisiina,Thus donè and