Jackson v. Cain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CHARLES JACKSON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO:1-3470 N. BURL CAIN, WARDEN SECTION “H” ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Charles Jackson’s “Motion to Supplement the Procedure and Rules of Federal Courts Under 28 USC Section (d)” (Doc. 27). On November 19, 2001, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 On September 17, 2002, Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr. dismissed Petitioner’s petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust available state court remedies.2 Petitioner then filed three motions, each seeking to reopen this action and obtain relief from final judgment dismissing his petition without prejudice.3 The Court denied each, as Petitioner had not raised a valid claim for relief.4 In the instant Motion, Petitioner again seeks to reopen this action and supplement the claims in his original habeas petition.5 “A dismissal without 1 Doc. 1. 2 Doc. 13. 3 Docs. 15, 21, 22. 4 Docs. 20, 24. 5 To the extent that the Court could construe the instant Motion as one for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Petitioner’s Motion raises no valid claims for relief. prejudice so that a federal habeas petition may exhaust state-court remedies does not simply pause the federal habeas case; it dismisses it and closes the case. Because the dismissal is ‘without prejudice,’ the petitioner in such a situation may refile his federal habeas claims in a new action in order to pursue them.”6 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Supplement the Procedure and Rules of Federal Courts Under 28 USC Section (d) (Doc. 27) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the federal district court under a new case number. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of March, 2026. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ® Richmond v. Heimgartner, No. 16-3058, 2024 WL 4137326, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 12, 2024).