Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 913587
Summary Calendar.
Lionel J. FORET, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
John P. WHITLEY, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, and William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney
General, State of Louisiana, Respondents-Appellees.
July 9, 1992.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:
Lionel Foret is a prisoner currently serving a life sentence in Louisiana State Penitentiary for
distribution of heroin. He filed this pro se § 2254 habeas petition challenging his life sentence,
contending that denial of parole consideration deprived him of a protected liberty interest without due
process, that the state parole sentencing court deprived him of due process in imposing the sentence,
and that the sentence violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution
because it is indeterminate. The district court denied the petition on the merits but did not consider
whether the petition constituted an abuse of writ in violation of Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases. We remand to allow the district court to consider whether Foret's petition
abused the writ.
I.
After jury trial in January, 1977, Foret was convicted of distribution of heroin in Louisiana
state court. Foret also pled guilty to another heroin distribution charge in July, 1977. The trial court
imposed a life sentence for these charges. Foret appealed from his conviction and sentence, and the
Louisiana Supreme Court set aside the sentence and remanded Foret's case for re-sentencing, finding
that the trial court had not properly considered alternative sentences.

On remand, the trial court again gave a life sentence, offering reasons for the sentence, noting
that Foret had attempted to escape from Louisiana State Penitentiary, that Foret was "in need of
correctional treatment or a custodial environment that can be provided most effectively by his
commitment to an institution," and that "a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of
defendant's crime."
Foret then filed a § 2254 habeas petition in federal court, which was dismissed because Foret
did not exhaust available state habeas remedies. After exhausting state habeas remedies, Foret
returned to federal court with the same habeas petition. This petition alleged that Foret's guilty plea
to one of the distribution counts was involuntary and that Foret was not given effective assistance of
counsel. The district court denied this petition after an evidentiary hearing, and this court affirmed
in an unpublished opinion. Foret v. Blackburn, 765 F.2d 141 (5th Cir.1985).
After his habeas petition had been denied, Foret wrote to the Chair of the Louisiana parole
board requesting a parole hearing. Keetsie Tullier, the Chairman of the Board, wrote to Foret that
"[La.]R.S. 15:574.4 prohibits parole consideration for those inmates serving a life sentence unless the
sentence is commuted to a fixed number of years." After receiving this letter, Foret, filed a "motion
to correct an illegally excessive sentence" in state trial court, which was denied, as were Foret's state
petitions for collateral relief.
Foret then filed the present § 2254 petition for habeas relief in federal district court,
contending that the state sentencing court and parole board deprived him of due process and that his
life sentence violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The state
urged the district court to dismiss Foret's latest petition as an abuse of the writ under McCleskey v.
Zant, U.S. , 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991). The district court, however, decided
to "pretermit a discussion of the controlling Rule 9(b) precepts" and instead denied Foret's claims on
the merits.

II.
We do not address the merits of Foret's contentions on appeal. As we noted in a similar case,
"[t]he primary responsibility for deciding whether a petitioner has abused the writ is with the district
court." Alexander v. Whitley, 940 F.2d 946, 948 (5th Cir.1991). In Alexander, the district court
declined to address whether a petition violated Rule 9(b), instead denying the petition on the merits.
Noting that the district court's discretion in addressing the McCleskey issue " "is not unfettered,' " we
vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case for a determination of whether the petition
constituted an abuse of the writ under McCleskey. Alexander, 940 F.2d at 948.
If the state asserts that the petition is an abuse of the writ under Rule 9(b), then the district
court is obliged to address this issue before it reaches the merits of a case. The district court abuses
its discretion when it "pretermits" consideration of the McCleskey issue by denying the petition as
meritless. Insisting that state prisoners include all their claims in their first federal petition, absent
narrow countervailing circumstances, is a basic limitation on the availability of the writ expressing
powerful interests of comity and repose. Rule 9(b) is not a technical barrier for meritorious petitions.
We vacate and remand to the district court with instruction to consider whether Foret's petition
should be dismissed as an abuse of the writ under Rule 9(b).
VACATED and REMANDED.