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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?