Williams v. Flournoy
ORDER granting 3 Motion to Supplement, but only to the extent the Court considered the allegations contained in Williams' Supplement to reach the recommended disposition of this case; denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 10/3/2017. (ca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
FRANKLIN L. WILLIAMS,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:17-cv-80
J.V. FLOURNOY, Warden,
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 a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis. (Doc. 2.) Upon review, the Court DENIES Williams’ Motion, (doc. 2). The Court
GRANTS Williams’ Motion to Supplement, (doc. 3), but only to the extent the Court considered
the allegations contained in Williams’ Supplement to reach the recommended disposition of this
case. For the reasons that follow, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Williams’ Section
2241 Petition, DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate
judgment of dismissal, and DENY Williams in forma pauperis status on appeal.
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’ sixteenth Section 2241 Petition filed
in this District. All of his previous petitions were dismissed because Williams could not satisfy
the saving clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). See Williams v. Bethtord, 5:15-cv-6 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 6,
2015). Although the Court can now prevent Williams from filing these repetitive and abusive
habeas corpus actions, Williams filed this Petition prior to Chief Judge J. Randal Hall’s entry of
the Order in Case Number 1:17-mc-1. 1 Order, In re: Franklin Williams, 1:17-mc-1 (S.D. Ga.
July 25, 2017), ECF No. 1. Nevertheless, the Court can prevent the waste of judicial resources
expended on the review of his claims in this Petition 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. (Docs. 1, 3.) 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. McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir.
2017). Because Williams does not satisfy this basic requirement, the Court should DISMISS
Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis
The Court should also deny Williams leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
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
Williams is advised that, should the Court adopt this Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the
Court, his post-judgment filings will be restricted based on the Order in Case Number 1:17-mc-1. Order,
In re: Franklin Williams, 1:17-mc-1 (S.D. Ga. July 25, 2017), ECF No. 1.
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
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.
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), DIRECT the Clerk of
Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal, and DENY Williams
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court DENIES Williams’ Motion for Leave to Proceed
in Forma Pauperis in this Court. (Doc. 2.) However, the Court GRANTS Williams’ Motion to
Supplement, but only to the extent the Court considered the allegations contained in Williams’
Supplement to reach the recommended disposition of this case. (Doc. 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
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 Court DIRECTS the Clerk of
Court to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation upon Williams.
SO ORDERED and REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this 3rd day of October,
R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?