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)

Download PDF
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.

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?