Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gage v. Lawson

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

March 12, 2019

DENTON WILLIAM GAGE, Petitioner,
v.
LONNIE LAWSON, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          SHON T. ERWIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus alleging a violation of his rights under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF Nos. 1 & 8).[1] United States District Court Judge David L. Russell has referred the matter to the undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). In accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the undersigned has examined the Petition and taken judicial notice of various state court records.[2] After review, the undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS the Petition on screening.

         I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On September 22, 2017, in Payne County District Court Case No. CF-2017-492, Petitioner plead guilty to assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. (ECF No. 1:2). Mr. Gage did not file a motion to withdraw the plea, and his conviction became final ten days later, on October 2, 2017. See OCCA Rule 4.2. Mr. Gage sought Post-Conviction Relief in the Payne County District Court, but that Court dismissed/denied the application.[3]Mr. Gage challenged the District Court's decision by filing an appeal in the OCCA, which that court dismissed as untimely.[4] On December 12, 2018 and January 7, 2019 respectively, Mr. Gage filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Supplement to the Petition, challenging the Payne County conviction. See ECF Nos. 1:1; 8:1; supra, n.1.

         II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         The Court is required to review habeas petitions promptly and to “summarily dismiss [a] petition without ordering a responsive pleading, ” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005), “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See R. 4, R. Governing § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Ct. III.

         III. PETITIONER'S GROUNDS FOR RELIEF

         In the Supplement, Mr. Turner outlines four grounds for relief:

1. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel;
2. Improper placement on “suicide detainment;”
3. He was prejudiced owing to negligence by employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs; and
4. He was “inappropriately treated” in a state court case arising out of Tulsa County, CF-2013-6202.

(ECF No. 8:5-9).

         IV. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.