Love v. Dauzat et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHYHEEM TYJE LOVE 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-1335
MICHELE DAUZAT 	SECTION: D (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
The Court, having considered Plaintiff Shyheem Tyje Love’s Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus,1 the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge,2 the failure of the Plaintiff to timely file any
objection to the Report and Recommendation,3 and having determined that the
Report is neither clearly erroneous or contrary to the law, hereby approves the Report
and Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion in this matter. In doing so, the
Court notes that it has construed Plaintiff Shyheem Tyje Love’s pro se pleading
liberally.4 	The Court reemphasizes the admonition of the Magistrate Judge that
Plaintiff must file his state post-conviction application in the near future to
pause the federal limitations period and receive the benefit of statutory
tolling.5
1 R. Doc. 3.
2 R. Doc. 13.
3 Objections were due October 3, 2025. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court has allowed
additional time for objections. None have been filed as of the date of this Order. Additionally, per the
Briefing Order of the Magistrate Judge (R. Doc. 7), Plaintiff had thirty days from the date of the
District Attorney or Attorney General’s Answer to file a Reply memorandum. The District Attorney
answered on September 8, 2025 (R. Docs. 10-12). The Magistrate Judge issued her Report and
Recommendation before the deadline for a Reply “to put Love on notice and provide him with as much
time as possible for him to file a state application for post-conviction relief.” Plaintiff has not filed a
Reply as of the date of this Order.
4 See Coleman v. United States, 912 F.3d 824, 828 (5th Cir. 2019).
5 The Court, like the Magistrate Judge, makes no findings on whether a future federal habeas petition
would be timely. Plaintiff is advised that the filing of a federal habeas corpus petition, such as this
Case 2:25-cv-01335-WBV Document 14 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 3

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceedings provides that,
“[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a
final order adverse to the applicant.” A court may only issue a certificate of
appealability if the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional 	right.”6 	The 	“controlling 	standard” 	for 	issuing 	a 	certificate 	of
appealability requires the petitioner to show “that reasonable jurists could debate
whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a
different 	manner 	or 	that 	the 	issues 	presented 	[are] 	adequate 	to 	deserve
encouragement to proceed further.”7 The Court finds that Shyheem Tyje Love’s
Petition fails to satisfy this standard. Accordingly, the Court will not issue a
certificate of appealability.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay and Hold in
Abeyance8 is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s petition for issuance of a writ of
habeas 	corpus 	filed 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§2254 	be 	DISMISSED 	without
prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability will not be
issued.
one, does not toll the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 statute of limitation.
Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181–182 (2001); Mathis v. Thaler, 616 F.3d 461, 473 (5th Cir. 2010).
6 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
7 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)) (citation modified).
8 R. Doc. 5.
Case 2:25-cv-01335-WBV Document 14 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mail Plaintiff a copy of
this Order.
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 3, 2025.
______________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-01335-WBV Document 14 Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 3