Williams v. Kelly

Filing 23

ORDER adopting in their entirety 21 the proposed findings and recommendations; granting 7 respondent Wendy Kelley's motion to dismiss and dismissing this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action is dismissed in its entirety; dismissing, without prejudic e, Williams's claims regarding his conviction and sentence in Williams v. State, 1997 WL 160778 (Ark. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 1997), so that Williams can seek authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive habeas action; an d dismissing, with prejudice, as untimely, Williams's claims regarding the convictions and sentences in Williams v. State, 331 Ark. 263, 962 S.W.2d 329 (Ark. 1998), and Williams v. State, 2000 WL 546653 (Ark. Sup. Ct. May 4, 2000). A certificate of appealability will not be granted because Williams has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 8/25/2017. (kdr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
JACKIE LEE WILLIAMS
ADC #093224
v.

PETITIONER

CASE NO. 5:17CV00017 BSM

WENDY KELLEY, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction

RESPONDENT
ORDER

The proposed findings and recommendations [Doc. No. 21] submitted by United
States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray have been received along with petitioner Jackie
Williams’s objections. See Doc. No. 22. After careful consideration of the record, the
proposed findings and recommendations are adopted in their entirety.
Accordingly, respondent Wendy Kelley’s motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 7] is granted
and this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action is dismissed in its entirety. Williams’s claims regarding his
conviction and sentence in Williams v. State, 1997 WL 160778 (Ark. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 1997)
is dismissed, without prejudice, so that Williams can seek authorization from the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), to file a successive habeas
petition. Williams’s claims regarding the convictions and sentences in Williams v. State, 331
Ark. 263, 962 S.W.2d 329 (Ark. 1998), and Williams v. State, 2000 WL 546653 (Ark. Sup.
Ct. May 4, 2000), are dismissed, with prejudice, as untimely. A certificate of appealability
will not be granted because Williams has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of August 2017.
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2