Ricks v. Department of Justice et al

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WESLEY RICKS (#499599)
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 24-622-BAJ-RLB
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL.
NOTICE
Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge’s Report has been filed with the
Clerk of the United States District Court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served
with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of
law and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings,
conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon
grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and
legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.
ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 4, 2026.
S
Case 3:24-cv-00622-BAJ-RLB Document 3 02/04/26 Page 1 of 2

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WESLEY RICKS (#499599)
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 24-622-BAJ-RLB
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court on the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus
(R. Doc. 1). The petitioner has previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus regarding the
same conviction. See Wesley Sinclair Ricks v. Darrel Vannoy, 21-831 (W.D. La.).
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) and (2) authorize dismissal of “second and successive” habeas
corpus petitions, and § 2244(b)(3) directs a petitioner filing a “second and successive” habeas to
obtain authorization from the appropriate Court of Appeals before filing the petition in District
Court.
The instant petition is another attempt to collaterally attack the petitioner’s state court
conviction, and the petitioner’s claims are clearly successive. As the petitioner has not yet
received permission from the Court of Appeals to file a successive petition in the District Court
as required by statute, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider his claims.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the petition (R. Doc. 1) be deemed a successive habeas corpus
petition, and that it be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiff did not obtain permission
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit prior to filing.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 4, 2026.
S
Case 3:24-cv-00622-BAJ-RLB Document 3 02/04/26 Page 2 of 2