Williams v. Baker et al

Filing 31

ORDER dismissing Williams' 29 Rule 60(b) Motion, and denying Williams' 30 Rule 60(b)(6) Motion. The Court's June 17, 2016, Order remains the Order of the Court, and this case remains CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 2/23/2017. (csr)

Sn

?intteb States! litsitrttt Coatt

jfot tfft ^outl^etn IBiieftntt of 4^eorgta
Prutisilotcb Btlitsitott
FRANKLIN L. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:15-cv-l 18

THURBERT E. BAKER; and STATE OF
GEORGIA,

Respondents.

ORDER

Presently before the Court are Petitioner Franklin
Williams'

{^'Williams") Rule 60(b) Motion ""^Negligent Dismissal

for Failure to Pay" filing fee and his Rule 60(b)(6) Motion
based on this Court's dismissal of Williams'

28 U.S.C.

§

2254

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without issuing a meritsbased determination.
follow,

Dkt. Nos. 29, 30.

the Court DISMISSES Williams'

For the reasons which

Rule 60(b) Motion, dkt.

no. 29, and DENIES Williams' Rule 60(b)(6) Motion, dkt. no. 30.
I.

Williams'

Rule 60(b) Motion, Dkt. No. 29

This Court dismissed Williams'

28 U.S.C.

§

2254

Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus on June 17, 2016, as an unauthorized
second or successive petition.

A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Dkt. No. 19.

Not surprisingly.

Williams filed a Notice of Appeal of this Court's Order.
No. 20.

Dkt.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Williams'

motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his appeal, as
he did '^not have a non-frivolous issue with .

dismissal of his § 2254 petition."

.

. respect to the

Dkt. No. 26, p. 3.

In the instant Motion, Williams takes issue with the

Eleventh Circuit's ^'negligent dismissal" of his appeal for lack

of prosecution based on his failure to pay the applicable filing
fee.

Dkt. No. 29, p. 1.

Williams maintains the dismissal of

his appeal without a ruling on the relative merits of his appeal
violates his rights under the First and Sixth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.

Id.

First, the Eleventh Circuit determined Williams' appeal was
frivolous and dismissed on that basis, not on any alleged

failure to pay the filing fee.

Additionally, it is clear

Williams mistakenly filed his Motion with this Court.

Through

his Motion, he seeks relief from the Eleventh Circuit's

dismissal and judgment, not from the judgment of this Court.

Consequently, this Court DISMISSES Williams' Rule 60(b) Motion.
Should Williams wish to move the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals for relief from its judgment, he must do so by filing a
motion

in t h a t

Court.

II.

Williams' Rule 60(b)(6) Motion, Dkt. No. 30
In this Motion,

Williams contends this Court abused its

discretion in dismissing his Section 2254 Petition as an
unauthorized second or successive petition rather than
addressing the relative merits of his Petition.

pp. 1-2.

Dkt. No.

30,

Williams then launches into a rambling diatribe about

filing fees and previously-litigated causes of action, and

Williams once again attempts to present the "merits" of his
Section 2254 Petition.

Id. at pp. 3-10.

Rule 60(b) provides that a Court may relieve a party from a

judgment, order, or proceeding in a limited number of
circumstances including:

(1) mistake or neglect;

discovered evidence;

fraud;

(3)

(4) the judgment is void; or,

(5) the judgment has been satisfied.
(5).

(2) newly

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-

Additionally, the catchall provision of Rule 60(b)

authorizes relief from a judgment, order, or proceeding based on

"any other reason that justifies relief" raised "within a
reasonable time .
Fed. R. Civ. P.

. . after the entry of the judgment or order."

60(b)(6).

Relief under Rule 60(b)(6)

is an

"extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only upon a showing

of exceptional circumstances."
F.2d 677,

680

Arthur v.

Thomas.

Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722

(11th Cir. 1984)(citation omitted); see also
739 F.3d 611,

628

(11th Cir.

2014).

Williams'

Rule 60(b)(6) Motion fails on the merits because

it does not meet any of the grounds for relief set forth in Rule

60.

Williams is either unwilling or unable to accept this

Court's repeated rulings that he cannot bring an unauthorized
Section 2254 petition in this Court, and the Court lacks

jurisdiction to entertain the merits of such filings.

Williams

proffers no legitimate reason for this Court to disturb its

prior rulings, and he undoubtedly fails to reveal ''exceptional
circumstances" warranting this extraordinary remedy.
DENIES Williams'

Rule 60(b)(6)

The Court

Motion.

CONCLUSION

For the above-state reasons,
Rule 60(b)

60(b)(6)

Motion,

Motion,

dkt.

dkt.

no.

no.

29,

30.

remains the Order of the Court,

SO ORDERED, this

the Court DISMISSES Williams'

and DENIES Williams'

The Court's June 17,

Rule

2016,

Order

and this case remains CLOSED.

day of

I

LISA\GODB^ WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITEt5S;FATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

, 2017.