Williams v. Flournoy
ORDER dismissing as moot 14 Motion for Relief Under Excusable Neglect for lack of jurisdiction. The Court's Order dated June 17, 2016, remains the Order of this Court, and this case remains CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 2/23/2017. (csr)
3in tl)e ?[9mteli States: Btsitirtct Court
:lfor t|ie ^otttliiem I9ts(trttt of ([leorsta
FRANKXIN L. WILLIAMS,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:16-cv-48
This Court dismissed Petitioner Franklin Williams'
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, on June 17, 2016.
this case being on appeal, Williams has filed a ^^Motion for
Relief Under Excusable Neglect of Judgment and Order not Issued
as to a Government Official Threaten Without Trial, Hearing,
Sentencing Under Due Process of Law Fifth Amendment and Access
For the reasons which follow,
Court DISMISSES as moot Williams'
In his Motion, Williams contends he has been charged with a
crime without due process,
and the Bureau of Prisons will not
release him in the interest of public safety, in violation of
the Eighth Amendment.
Williams maintains the denial of his
rights is a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
maintains he is legally innocent of the crime for which he has
Dkt. No. 14, pp. 1-2.
As noted above, Williams has appealed this Court's Order
Petition, dkt. no.
Williams filed a
Notice of Appeal on June 23, 2016, and this Court entered
Judgment on July 6, 2016.
Dkt. Nos. 10, 13.
Thus, the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction in this matter, as
Williams is currently appealing the final decision of this
28 U.S.C. § 1291.^
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES as
^ Even if Williams' Motion could be construed as being properly made
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), i t must be
denied. ^^On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . .
. from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons:" ^^mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (1). ''^Under Rule 60(b), [a] prisoner must prove
^extraordinary circumstances' justifying the reopening of a final
judgment." Howell v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 730 F.3d 1257, 1260
(11th Cir. 2013)
(internal citation omitted).
However, even if a
prisoner ^Memonstrate[s] that the circumstances are sufficiently
extraordinary to warrant relief," ''whether to grant the requested
relief is . . . a matter for the district court's sound
discretion." Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 741 F.3d
1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (internal
citation omitted). "To determine whether the neglect is excusable and
justifies relief from a . . . [Court's Order], courts must consider
the following four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the
opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact
on judicial proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay, including
whether it was within the control of the movant; and (4) whether the
movant acted in good faith." Dunn v. Hart, No. 5:13-CV-131, 2016 WL
3620779, at *2 (S.D. Ga. June 29, 2016), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 5:13-CV-131, 2016 WL 4430924 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 16, 2016)
(alteration in original) (citing Bohannon v. PHH Mortg. Corp., No.
moot Williams' Motion for Relief Under Excusable Neglect for
lack of jurisdiction.
The Court's Order dated June 17, 2016,
remains the Order of this Court, and this case remains CLOSED
SO OIUDERED, this
LISA Goq BEX WOOD,
2015 WL 1137663, at *3
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
(N.D. Ga. Mar. 12, 2015)).
Williams' Motion is nothing more than a variation on themes that this
Court has repeatedly rejected: that certain of his constitutional
rights have been violated based on his conviction in this Court, that
a fundamental miscarriage of justice has occurred, and that he is
innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted.
Williams' latest Motion is an apparent continuation of his modus
operand! to flood this Court with his frivolous pleadings. Williams
cannot be considered to have acted in good faith in filing this
Motion, and, accordingly, the Court DENIES Williams' Motion made
pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), to the extent this Court would have
jurisdiction over the Motion.
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?