Summary
finding that appellate court's writ ruling that provided petitioner a later deadline for filing writ application that complied with procedural requirements was an implicit extension of time for purposes of tolling the one-year federal limitations period
Summary of this case from Roberts v. CainOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:11-cv-00749-BAJ-RLB
07-08-2014
DONALD HOLTON (#96835) v. BURL CAIN, ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner's PETITION UNDER 28 USC § 2254 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY A PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY (Doc. 1). The Magistrate Judge has issued a REPORT (Doc. 10) recommending that Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief be denied and, further, that the Court deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability, (id. at pp. 37-38). Petitioner filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report. (Doc. 11).
Having carefully considered Petitioner's PETITION (Doc. 1) and related filings—including Petitioner's objections—the Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's REPORT (Doc. 10) and ADOPTS it as the Court's opinion in this matter. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in the Magistrate Judge's Report (Doc. 10),
Petitioner's objections focus primarily on the Magistrate Judge's failure to grant an evidentiary hearing on his habeas petition. (See Doc. 11 at pp. 2-9, 10, 13, 14, 15). However, as acknowledged by Petitioner, a District Court is well-within its discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing on a habeas petition "if the factual allegations a petitioner seeks to prove at an evidentiary hearing would not satisfy [AEDPA's] standards." Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1414 (2011). Such is the case here, where "the evidence the petitioner seeks to present would [not] satisfy AEDPA's demanding standards," and a hearing "would needlessly prolong federal habeas proceedings." Id.
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's § 2254 PETITION (Doc. 1) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED because Petitioner has failed to "ma[ke] a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 8th day of July, 2014.
__________
BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA