Williams v. Flournoy

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that the Court DISMISS Williams' 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, CLOSE this case, and DENY Williams leave to proceed in forma pauperis status on appeal. The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is entered (Objections to R&R due by 5/30/2016). ORDER directing service of the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 5/16/2016. (ca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION

FRANKLIN L. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:16-cv-48

v.
J.V. FLOURNOY,
Respondent.

ORDER and MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Franklin Williams (“Williams”), who is currently housed at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Jesup, Georgia, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) Williams also filed two Motions for Leave to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis. (Docs. 2, 3.) Upon review, the Court DENIES Williams’ Motions, (docs. 2, 3).
Additionally, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Williams’ Section 2241 Petition and
DENY him in forma pauperis status on appeal.
DISCUSSION
I.

Whether Williams can Proceed Pursuant to Section 2241
Williams’ Petition is yet another in a long line of Section 2241 petitions Williams has

filed in this Court. The instant Petition is at least Williams’ fourteenth Section 2241 Petition
filed in this District. All of his previous petitions were dismissed because Williams could not
satisfy the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). See Williams v. Bethtord, 5:15-cv-6. While
the Court cannot prevent Williams from filing these repetitive and abusive habeas corpus actions,

the Court can prevent the waste of judicial resources expended on the review of his claims and
should dispose of Williams’ Petition as expeditiously as possible.
Through his many prior petitions, Williams has asserted the same claims as he does in
this Petition or some variation of those same claims. (Doc. 1.) As the Court informed Williams
on these previous occasions, he is not entitled to relief pursuant to Section 2241 because he does
not satisfy Section 2255(e)’s requirements. To utilize Section 2241 to attack the validity of a
federal sentence or conviction, a petitioner must show that the remedy afforded under Section
2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to challenge the validity of a conviction and/or sentence.
Taylor v. Warden, FCI Marianna, 557 F. App’x 911, 913 (11th Cir. 2014). Because Williams
does not satisfy this basic requirement, the Court should DISMISS Williams’ Petition.
II.

Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis
The Court should also deny Williams leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

Though

Williams has, of course, not yet filed a notice of appeal, it would be appropriate to address these
issues in the Court’s order of dismissal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3) (trial court may certify that
appeal of party proceeding in forma pauperis is not taken in good faith “before or after the notice
of appeal is filed”). An appeal cannot be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that
the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Good
faith in this context must be judged by an objective standard. Busch v. Cty. of Volusia, 189
F.R.D. 687, 691 (M.D. Fla. 1999). A party does not proceed in good faith when he seeks to
advance a frivolous claim or argument. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445
(1962). A claim or argument is frivolous when it appears the factual allegations are clearly
baseless or the legal theories are indisputably meritless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327
(1989); Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). Stated another way, an in forma

2

pauperis action is frivolous and, thus, not brought in good faith, if it is “without arguable merit
either in law or fact.” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Brown v.
United States, Nos. 407CV085, 403CR001, 2009 WL 307872, at *1–2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009).
Based on the above analysis of Williams’ Petition, there are no non-frivolous issues to
raise on appeal, and an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Thus, the Court should DENY
in forma pauperis status on appeal.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Williams’ Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (doc. 1), CLOSE this case, and
DENY Williams leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court DENIES Williams’ Motions
for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis in this Court. (Docs. 2, 3.)
The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation to
file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and
Recommendation is entered. Any objections asserting that the Magistrate Judge failed to address
any contention raised in the pleading must also be included. Failure to do so will bar any later
challenge or review of the factual findings or legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). A copy of the objections must be
served upon all other parties to the action. The filing of objections is not a proper vehicle
through which to make new allegations or present additional evidence.
Upon receipt of objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above, a United
States District Judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, proposed
findings, or recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Objections not

3

meeting the specificity requirement set out above will not be considered by a District Judge. A
party may not appeal a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation directly to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appeals may be made only from a final
judgment entered by or at the direction of a District Judge. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED
to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation upon Williams.
SO ORDERED and REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this 16th day of May,
2016.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

4