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.
Case 2:01-cv-03470-JTM-KWR Document 30 Filed 03/20/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6 Richmond v. Heimgartner, No. 16-3058, 2024 WL 4137326, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 12, 2024).
Case 2:01-cv-03470-JTM-KWR Document 30 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 2