Williford v. Ballard et al, No. 3:2019cv00751 - Document 23 (M.D. La. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION Adopting 19 Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. The Court decline to exercise jurisdiction on its own motion based on the Younger abstention doctrine and that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. First MOTION to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 10 is TERMINATED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 10/26/2020. (ELW)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williford v. Ballard et al Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JONATHAN WILLIFORD (#7700032441) CIVIL ACTION NO. VERSUS 19-751-JWD-EWD BENJAMIN THOMAS BALLARD, ET AL. OPINION The Court notes that the report and recommendation mailed to Jonathan Williford on August 24, 2020 (Doc. 19) was returned to the Court as undeliverable on September 11, 2020 (Doc. 20). On September 24, 2020, a notice of change of address was filed into the record by Johnathon Williford (Doc. 21). The Clerk of Court re-issued the report and recommendation to Jonathan Williford at his new address on September 30, 2020. After independently reviewing the entire record in this case and for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report (Doc. 19) dated August 24, 2020, to which no objection was filed; IT IS ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction on its own motion based on the Younger abstention doctrine and that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) filed by Respondents Benjamin Thomas Ballard, Jason Ard and Jeff Landry, is TERMINATED AS MOOT. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 26, 2020. S JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
