Miller v. Louisiana
| Decision Date | 15 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11-cv-1764 |
| Parties | DALE MILLER LA. DOC #479248 v. THE STATE OF LOUISIANA |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
DALE MILLER LA. DOC #479248
v.
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11-cv-1764
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SECTION P
Dated: December 15, 2011
Before the Court are a series of pleadings, motions, and exhibits filed in proper person by Dale Miller. Miller is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. Miller is serving a life sentence imposed by the Fifteenth Judicial District Court for Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, following his conviction for second degree murder.
On February 13, 2004, Miller was found guilty as charged of second degree murder and thereafter sentenced to serve life imprisonment. Miller's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct review in an unpublished opinion of the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals. State of Louisiana v. Dale Robin Miller, a/k/a Russell Ralston, a/k/a George Bathen, 2004-00858, 888 So.2d 1166 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/8/2004) (Table). Miller did not seek further direct review in the Louisiana Supreme Court. Miller's subsequent application for post-conviction relief was ultimately denied by the Louisiana Supreme Court on March 9, 2007. State of Louisiana ex rel. Dale Miller v. State of
Page 2
Louisiana, 2006-1509, 949 So.2d 437 (La. 3/9/2007).
On March 20, 2007, Miller filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The petition was transferred to this court. On August 26, 2008, the petition was dismissed with prejudice, each of petitioner's claims having been addressed on the merits. Dale Miller v. Burl Cain, Warden, No. 6:07-cv-0798, doc. 20. Miller's request for a Certificate of Appealability was denied by the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 29, 2009. Id. at doc. 31, Miller v. Cain, No. 08-30875 (5th Cir. 2009).
On January 5, 2010, Miller filed a pro se motion seeking authorization to file a second habeas petition in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 6, 2010, Miller was ordered to file a "proper motion" within 30 days. On February 11, 2010, his motion was dismissed for failing to comply with the Fifth Circuit's order. In re: Dale Robin Miller, No. 10-30007, (5th Cir. 2010).
On September 23, 2011, Miller submitted a pro se hand-written pleading entitled "Motion to Reconsider Motion for Nunc pro Tunc Hearing" to the Clerk of this Court. This pleading, which bears a heading indicating that it was filed originally in the Fifteenth Judicial District Court under that Court's docket number 92141 was accompanied by various "interrogatories" and excerpts from trial transcripts. See 6:11-cv-1764, doc. 1. On the same day, Miller filed several Motions as follows: (1) a "Motion to Appoint Counsel" in which he alleges that he needs an attorney to obtain affidavits from alibi
Page 3
witnesses so that he can "get a hearing or to file a 2nd request to the 5th Cir U.S. Court of Appeal so a 2nd habeas corpus application can be filed." [doc. 2]; (2) a "Petition to Take Depositions Before Action" in which he cites "Rule 27A(1)" and in which he claims that he is "preparing to file a 60(B)(3) motion" seeking to establish "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party . . . or a habeas corpus 2254." [doc. 3]; and (3) a "Petition to Obtain a Copy of Habeas Corpus and This Court's Ruling on Habeas Corpus Case No. 6:07-cv-00798." [doc. 4]. In response to the latter motion, the Clerk sent Miller a copy of the docket sheet and an estimate of this Court's fees for providing copies of the requested document.
On October 11, 2011, the undersigned issued an Order directing Miller to utilize the appropriate forms provided to prisoners seeking habeas corpus relief from a state court judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 He was also Ordered to submit either this Court's filing fee or a properly executed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Miller was expressly advised that his failure to comply with this Court's Order would result in his pleadings being stricken. [doc. 6].
Rather than complying with this Court's Order, on October 31, 2011, Miller instead filed a "Motion to Clarify Pleadings" in which Miller alleges that this Court has "misconstrued [his] pleadings . . ." because he did not intend the pleadings to be construed as a habeas petition filed pursuant to § 2254. In this Motion, Miller again
Page 4
requests that counsel appointed "to get affidavits from the 4 eyewitnesses that told I was not person they saw . . ." and "for depositions to be taken and to grant me copies of habeas corpus case No. 6:07-cv-00798 so I can file to 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals asking permission to file a 2nd or successive habeas corpus petition. . . ." [doc. 7].
By Motion filed on November 9, 2011, Miller requests that his failure to comply with the Order directing him to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis be excused. He further requests that the Court rule on his motion to appoint counsel, his motion to take depositions, and his motion to obtain copies. [doc. 9].
I. Nature of the Instant Action
Petitioner asserts by Motion that he did not intend for his pleadings to be construed as a petition seeking habeas corpus relief. It is clear, however, that is the only basis upon which this Court could possibly entertain his pleadings. Miller does not seek money damages. Rather, Miller seeks to challenge the validity of his state court criminal conviction and thus, secure his release from custody. "Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus." Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004). Accordingly, a habeas corpus petition is the proper vehicle to assert such challenges. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1833, 36 L.Ed., 2d 439 (1973); Serio v. Members of the La. State Board of Pardons, 821 F.2d 1112, 1117 (5th Cir. 1987); Spina v.
Page 5
Aaron, 821 F.2d 1126, 1128 (5th Cir. 1987); Pugh v. Parish of St. Tammany, 875 F.2d 436, 439 (5th Cir. 1989). Miller's pleadings are therefore properly construed as a petition for federal habeas corpus relief, and Miller's "Motion to Clarify Pleadings" [doc. 7] should be denied.
II. Filing Fees
As set forth above, Miller has filed numerous pleadings and exhibits in this court. He was, early in this process, Ordered to either pay this court's filing fee or to submit a properly executed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Miller was expressly advised that his failure to take any action...
To continue reading
Request your trial