Williams v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al

Filing 3

ORDER denying 1 --petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Larryel Lanier Williams; denying a certificate of appealability; denying leave to appeal in forma pauperis; directing the Clerk to ENTER JUDGMENT against Williams and to CLOSE the case. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 4/7/2017. (BK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
LARRYEL LANIER WILLIAMS,
Applicant,
v.

CASE NO. 8:17-cv-682-T-23TBM

SECRETARY, Department of Corrections,
Respondent.
/
ORDER
Williams applies under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for the writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1)
and challenges the validity of his state conviction for a misdemeanor offense, for
which he was sentenced to time-served. Williams neither paid the required filing fee
nor moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Rule 4, Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases, requires both a preliminary review of the application for the writ of
habeas corpus and a summary dismissal “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the
[application] and any exhibits annexed to it that the [applicant] is not entitled to relief
in the district court . . . .”
Williams discloses that he pleaded nolo contendere to resisting, opposing, or
obstructing an officer without violence, a misdemeanor. A review of the online
docket for the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Florida, reveals that Williams was

sentenced to time served, which was twenty-five days.1 Williams cannot proceed
under Section 2254 because he is not confined under the state court judgment that he
challenges.
A petitioner cannot challenge the validity of a state court conviction unless
confined based on the challenged conviction:
The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a
district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas
corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). Williams admits that he completed serving
the sentence he challenges in this case. Consequently, Williams cannot proceed with
his application for the writ of habeas corpus because he is no longer “in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court” based on the conviction he challenges in
this case.2 Walker v. Florida, 345 Fed. App’x 458 (11th Cir. 2009),3 explains that a
district court lacks jurisdiction if the applicant fails the “in custody” requirement:

1

The district court judicially notices the online docket of the Circuit Court for Pinellas
County, Florida, which docket is accessible by searching Williams’s name at
“https://ccmspa.pinellascounty.org/PublicAccess/default.aspx.” The specific page with Williams’s
information is “https://ccmspa.pinellascounty.org/PublicAccess/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=
17231665.”
2

According to the website for the Pinellas County jail, Williams is detained
pending trial on a charge of burglary of a conveyance, a charge of failure to appear, two
charges of possession of a controlled substance, and two additional charges of resisting or obstructing
an officer without violence. This information is available under Williams’s name
at “http://pcsoweb.com/whos-in-jail/.”
3

“Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as
persuasive authority.” 11th Cir. Rule 36-2.
-2-

For a district court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner must be “in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” [Section 2254]. §§ 2241(c)(3), 2254(a); accord
Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91, 109 S .Ct. 1923, 1925,
104 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1989). Jurisdiction does not extend to a
petitioner who challenges a conviction after his sentence has
completely expired. White v. Butterworth, 70 F.3d 573, 574 (11th
Cir. 1995). The district court lacked jurisdiction to review
Walker’s petition because his sentences expired in 2002.

See also Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 492 (1989) (“The question presented by this
case is whether a habeas petitioner remains <in custody’ under a conviction after the
sentence imposed for it has fully expired, merely because of the possibility that the
prior conviction will be used to enhance the sentences imposed for any subsequent
crimes of which he is convicted. We hold that he does not.”); Lackawanna County
District Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 398, 403 (2001) (“[W]e hold that once a state
conviction is no longer open to direct or collateral attack in its own right because the
defendant failed to pursue those remedies while they were available (or because the
defendant did so unsuccessfully), the conviction may be regarded as conclusively
valid.”).
Accordingly, the application for the writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is
DENIED. The clerk must enter a judgment against Williams and close this case.
DENIAL OF BOTH
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Williams is not entitled to a COA. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus
has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition.
-3-

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Rather, a district court must first issue a COA. Section
2253(c)(2) permits issuing a COA “only if the applicant has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” To merit a COA, Williams must
show that reasonable jurists would find debatable both (1) the merits of the
underlying claims and (2) the procedural issues he seeks to raise. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000); Eagle v. Linahan, 279 F.3d
926, 935 (11th Cir 2001). Because Williams fails to show that reasonable jurists
would debate either the merits of the claims or the procedural issues, Williams is not
entitled to a certificate of appealability and he is not entitled to appeal in forma
pauperis.
Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Leave to appeal in
forma pauperis is DENIED. Williams must obtain permission from the circuit court
to appeal in forma pauperis.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on April 7, 2017.

-4-