WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Petitioner is denied the issuance of a certificate of appealability and is not entitled to ifp status on appeal. This case stands closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 3/21/2018. (pts)

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

FRANKLIN L. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

*
*

V.

*

CV 518-023

*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

*

Respondent.

ORDER

Petitioner
Correctional

is

presently

Institution

in

confined
Jesup,

at

the

Georgia.

Federal

Petitioner,

proceeding pro se, initiated the present action with the filing
of a petition - in which he purportedly seeks a writ of habeas
corpus

pursuant

District

to

Court

28

for

Contemporaneously

U.S.C.

the

with

§

2241

District

- in

of

the filing of

the

United

Columbia.^

his

States

(Doc.

1.)

petition.

Petitioner

filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis C'lFP").

(Doc. 2.)

Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to supplement his instant
petition.
proper

court

(Doc. 4.)

respondent

may

not

Mindful that ''Petitioner's warden is the

to a

habeas

entertain

a

petition" and

habeas

petition

that "a

involving

district

present

physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its
^ Williams v. United States, Case No. l:17-cv-2759 (D.D.C. filed Nov. 17,
2017).

territorial jurisdiction," the D.C. District Court transferred
this action to

this Court for resolution.

(Doc. 5 (citations

omitted).)

This Court has previously imposed filing restrictions on
Petitioner
Williams

due

v.

to

his

Darden,

past

Case

abusive-filing

No.

4;ll-cv-213

Jan. 31, 2012), Doc. 66, at 3-6.)

practices.

(S.D.

Ga.

(See

dismissed

These filing restrictions are

applicable to the present action because Petitioner has sought
leave

to

proceed IFP.

(Id.

at 4

(''As

to

any future civil

actions sought to be commenced [IFP] by [Petitioner] . . . .").)
And while these filing restrictions "do not apply . . . to any

proper application for a writ of habeas corpus" (id. at 6), as
explained

below,

the

instant

petition

is

not

a

"proper"

application for a writ of habeas corpus.

Here,

Petitioner

has

filed

a

petition

challenging

the

sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by this Court in the
matter of United States v. Williams, Case No. 5:06-cr-14 (S.D.

Ga. sentence imposed June 20, 2007).

While nominally-styled as

a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the instant petition is in
fact a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because it collaterally
attacks

fall

the

within

validity of

the scope

his

of

federal sentence

Section 2255(a).^

via

claims

(See

that

Doc. 1.)

^ See Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348, 1352 n.l (11th Cir.
2008)
C'[I]t is uncontroversial that federal prisoners cannot avoid the
procedural restrictions on § 2255 motions by changing the caption on their

Petitioner, however, has previously filed numerous Section 2255

petitions in this Court.

(See, e.g., Williams v. United States,

Case No. 5:08-cv-34 (S.D. Ga. dismissed Aug. 10, 2009); Williams
V. United States, Case No. 5:09-cv-104 (S.D. Ga. dismissed May
28,

2010);

Williams

v.

United

States,

5:ll-cv-19

(S.D.

Ga.

dismissed June 15, 2011); Williams v. United States, Case No.
5:ll-cv-73

(S.D.

Ga.

dismissed

Oct.

26,

2011);

Williams

v.

United States, Case No. 5:ll-cv-77 (S.D. Ga. dismissed Dec. 2,

2011); Williams v. United States, Case No. 5:12-cv-25 (S.D. Ga.
dismissed

June

20,

2012);

Williams

v.

United

States,

et

al.,

Case No. 5:12-cv-40 (S.D. Ga. dismissed July 16, 2012); Williams
V. United States, Case No. 5:12-cv-43 (S.D. Ga. dismissed July
16, 2012); Williams v. United States, Case No. 5:13-cv-17 (S.D.

Ga. dismissed May 30, 2013).

Petitioner's instant petition is a

successive Section 2255 petition because it seeks to relitigate
issues that this Court has previously-rejected on the merits or
that

Petitioner

petitions.

could

have

Accordingly,

raised

before

in

filing

his

his

prior

Section

2255

instant successive

petition in this Court, Petitioner was obligated to move in the

petition

to

§

2241.

A

prisoner

in

custody

pursuant

to

a

federal

court

judgment may proceed under § 2241 only when he raises claims outside the
scope of § 2255(a), that is, claims concerning execution of his sentence."
(internal citations omitted)).
Notably, this Court has previously advised
Petitioner that he "cannot circumvent the requirements for § 2255 motions by
styling his petition for habeas corpus as being filed pursuant to § 2241."
(See, e.g., Williams v. Tamez, Case No. 5:ll-cv-18 (S.D. Ga. dismissed May
27, 2011), Doc. 6, at 5; Williams v. United States, Case No. 5:ll-cv-31 (S.D.

Ga. dismissed June 15, 2011), Doc. 3, at 5; Williams v. United States, Case
No. 5:ll-cv-118 (S.D. Ga. dismissed Feb. 6, 2012), Doc. 5, at 5.)

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for an

order authorizing this Court to consider Petitioner's instant
successive petition.
Petitioner

without

failed

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

to obtain

jurisdiction

to

this authorization,

consider

his

instant

Because

this Court is

petition.

See

Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003)

(''Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction
to consider a second or successive petition." (citing Hill v.

Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088, 1089 (11th Cir. 1997)).

Upon the foregoing and due consideration, IT IS THEREFORE
ORDERED that Petitioner's instant habeas corpus petition (doc.
1) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
to

TERMINATE

Further,

showing

all

motions

because

of

the

and

Petitioner

denial

of

deadlines

has

a

The Clerk is directed

failed

and

to

CLOSE

make

constitutional

a

this

case.

substantial

right,

the

Court

preemptively DENIES any forthcoming motion for the issuance of a
certificate
regards

to

of

appealability

this

matter.

See

that
28

Petitioner
U.S.C.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 482-84 (2000).

§

may

file

2253(c);

with

Slack

v.

Moreover, because there

are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, an appeal would

not

be

taken

in

good

faith

and

therefore

the

Court

also

preemptively DENIES any request by Petitioner for IFP status on
appeal.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this

day of March,

2018.

J. RANDAL HALL,/CHIEF JUDGE

UNITEl^TATES DISTRICT COURT
--SOUTH^^ DISTRICT OF GEORGIA