Corkern v. State of Louisiana

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA PRESTON SCOTT CORKERN CIVIL ACTION (#456448) VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 23-00605-BAJ-EWD RULING AND ORDER On July 25, 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 , not in a civil rights action pursuant to §1983.” (Doc. 4 at 4). Petitioner objects to dismissal, and contends that because his claims challenge his underlying conviction, rather than the validity of his confinement, his claims are justiciable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . 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 (th 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 10 “day of July, 2024 JUDGE BRIAN A. = UNITED STATES IMSTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ' Petitioner is advised that construing 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).