From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jenkins v. Cooper

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Jun 26, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-0216, SECTION "S"(4) (E.D. La. Jun. 26, 2009)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that a petitioner does not benefit from any statutory tolling for an untimely writ application filed in the Louisiana Supreme Court because “ writ application which fails to comply with La. Sup. Ct. Rule X 5 is not properly filed because it is untimely, and it is not pending post-conviction review for purposes of the . . . statute of limitations and tolling doctrines”

Summary of this case from Luckey v. Day
See 9 Summaries

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-0216, SECTION "S"(4).

June 26, 2009

ORDER

MARY LEMMON, District Judge

The Court, having considered the complaint, the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the failure of any party to file an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, hereby approves the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and adopts it as its opinion in this matter. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that James A. Jenkins, Jr.'s petition for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as time barred.

Summaries of

Jenkins v. Cooper

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Jun 26, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-0216, SECTION "S"(4) (E.D. La. Jun. 26, 2009)

holding that a petitioner does not benefit from any statutory tolling for an untimely writ application filed in the Louisiana Supreme Court because “ writ application which fails to comply with La. Sup. Ct. Rule X 5 is not properly filed because it is untimely, and it is not pending post-conviction review for purposes of the . . . statute of limitations and tolling doctrines”

Summary of this case from Luckey v. Day

holding that a petitioner does not benefit from any statutory tolling for an untimely writ application filed in the Louisiana Supreme Court because “ writ application which fails to comply with La. Sup. Ct. Rule X 5 is not properly filed because it is untimely, and it is not pending post-conviction review for purposes of the . . . statute of limitations and tolling doctrines”

Summary of this case from Laneheart v. Louisiana

holding that a petitioner does not benefit from any statutory tolling for an untimely writ application filed in the Louisiana Supreme Court because “ writ application which fails to comply with La. S.Ct. Rule X 5 is not properly filed because it is untimely, and it is not pending post-conviction review for purposes of the ...statute of limitations and tolling doctrines”

Summary of this case from Fontenelle v. Narcisse

holding that a petitioner does not benefit from any tolling for an untimely writ application filed in the Louisiana Supreme Court because " writ application which fails to comply with La. S.Ct. Rule X § 5 is not properly filed because it is untimely, and it is not pending post-conviction review for purposes of the ... statute of limitations and tolling doctrines"

Summary of this case from Murray v. Cain

holding that a petitioner does not benefit from any statutory tolling for an untimely writ application filed in the Louisiana Supreme Court because " writ application which fails to comply with La. S.Ct. Rule X § 5 is not properly filed because it is untimely, and it is not pending post-conviction review for purposes of the ... statute of limitations and tolling doctrines"

Summary of this case from Gray v. Wingham

holding that a petitioner does not benefit from any statutory tolling for an untimely writ application filed in the Louisiana Supreme Court because " writ application which fails to comply with La. S.Ct. Rule X § 5 is not properly filed because it is untimely, and it is not pending post-conviction review for purposes of the ... statute of limitations and tolling doctrines"

Summary of this case from Mosby v. Landry

holding that a petitioner does not benefit from any statutory tolling for an untimely writ application filed in the Louisiana Supreme Court because " writ application which fails to comply with La. S.Ct. Rule X § 5 is not properly filed because it is untimely, and it is not pending post-conviction review for purposes of the ... statute of limitations and tolling doctrines"

Summary of this case from Arnaud v. Vannoy

holding that a petitioner does not benefit from any statutory tolling for an untimely writ application filed in the Louisiana Supreme Court because " writ application which fails to comply with La. S.Ct. Rule X § 5 is not properly filed because it is untimely, and it is not pending post-conviction review for purposes of the ... statute of limitations and tolling doctrines"

Summary of this case from Norwood v. Caldwell

holding that a petitioner does not benefit from any statutory tolling for an untimely writ application filed in the Louisiana Supreme Court because " writ application which fails to comply with La. S.Ct. Rule X § 5 is not properly filed because it is untimely, and it is not pending post-conviction review for purposes of the ... statute of limitations and tolling doctrines"

Summary of this case from Dixon v. Cain
Case details for

Jenkins v. Cooper

Case Details

Full title:JAMES A. JENKINS, JR. v. LYNN COOPER, WARDEN AVOYELLES CORR. CTR. LA…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Jun 26, 2009

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-0216, SECTION "S"(4) (E.D. La. Jun. 26, 2009)

Citing Cases

Whitlock v. Vannoy

It is immaterial that the petitioner also filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his writ application;…

Villafranco v. Goodwin

It is clear that a federal habeas petitioner receives no tolling credit whatsoever for an untimely Louisiana…

15 Citing Cases