Williams v. Hawaii, State of
ORDER DENYING PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 07/25/2017. (eps, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive e lectronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MAUNU RENAH WILLIAMS,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF STATE )
OF HAWAII, OREGON,
TEXAS, NEW YORK,
CIV. NO. 17-00325 LEK-RLP
ORDER DENYING PETITION
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254
AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
ORDER DENYING PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254
AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before the court is Petitioner Maunu Renah
Williams’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner, Motion for Absolute
Pardon, Motion for En Banc Hearing, and Motion for Writ
of Coram Nobis.
ECF Nos. 1, 2, 4-6.
the Attorneys General of the States of Hawaii, Oregon,
Washington, California, New York, and Texas as
Respondents to the Petition and seeks “commutation,
clemency, pardon by [President] Donald Trump [and
Governor] David Y. Ige.”1
Williams says he “wrote to
the Governor and White House, F.B.I., etc.,” but has
received no response.
He alleges the failure to grant
him clemency has or will violate the Eighth and
Williams’s Petition is DENIED and his Motions are
Any request for a certificate of
appealability is DENIED.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
requires the court to summarily dismiss a habeas
petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and
any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief in the district court.”
Procedural Defects in the Petition
First, it appears that Williams seeks relief from
the judgments of conviction in more than one state
Williams is incarcerated at the Halawa Correctional
Facility (“HCF”) pursuant to a Hawaii state court conviction.
See State v. Williams,3PC141000469, available at eCourt Kokua:
https://jimspss1.courts.state.hi.us/JEFS. (last visit 7/17/2017).
He says he is a fugitive of justice from Oregon, Washington,
Texas, California, and New York. Pet., ECF 1, PageID #1.
court that were apparently entered in several different
Williams must file a separate petition for
each judgment that he challenges in each respective
See Rule 2(e).
Second, a federal court may not entertain a habeas
petition unless the petitioner has exhausted all
available and adequate state court remedies with
respect to all claims in the petition.
455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982).
Rose v. Lundy,
A wholly unexhausted
petition must be dismissed.
To the extent that
Williams challenges his conviction in State v.
Williams, 3PC141000469, to which he vaguely refers and
for which he is presently incarcerated, he explicitly
and repeatedly states that he has not appealed or
otherwise challenged that judgment.2
See Pet., ECF No.
1, PageID #2-14; see also eCourt Kokua:
https://jimspss1.courts.state.hi.us/JEFS. (last visited
Williams refers instead to his federal civil rights
action, Williams v. Ige, 1:17-cv-00222 SOM (D. Haw.), in the
apparently mistaken belief that this action suffices to have
exhausted his state conviction in the state court. It does not.
July 18, 2017).
Williams’s Petition is therefore
subject to dismissal as unexhausted.
Third, a petition brought under § 2254 must be
filed within the applicable one-year statute of
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
The period of
limitation runs from the latest of
(A) the date on which the judgment became final
by the conclusion of direct review or the
expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing
an application created by State action in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the
United States is removed, if the applicant was
prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right
asserted was initially recognized by the
Supreme Court, if the right has been newly
recognized by the Supreme Court and made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of
the claim or claims presented could have been
discovered through the exercise of due
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
The statute of limitation is
tolled while “a properly filed application for State
post-conviction or other collateral review with respect
to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending.”
U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Williams pled guilty in 3PC141000469, on
December 2, 2014, and he was sentenced on January 27,
Accepting that he failed to appeal this decision,
Williams’s conviction was final thirty days later, on
February 26, 2015.
See Hawaii Rules of Appellate
Procedure, Rule 4(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A);
Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999).
statute of limitation began to run on February 27,
2015, and barring statutory or equitable tolling,
expired on February 26, 2016.
Williams alleges no statutory or equitable bases
for tolling the statute of limitation.
Petition therefore appears time-barred.
The Court makes no ruling on these procedural
issues because Williams has not had the opportunity to
respond to these issues and the full state court record
is not before the court.
Nonetheless, the Petition is
subject to dismissal because Williams’s claim for
clemency is without merit.
Williams’s Petition is Without Merit
Fourth, and most importantly, Williams has no right
to the relief he seeks — clemency or a pardon.
Connecticut Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458,
464, 467 (1981) (holding that the power vested in the
Connecticut Board of Pardons to commute sentences
conferred no rights beyond the right to seek
commutation); Woratzeck v. Stewart,
118 F.3d 648, 653
(9th Cir. 1997) (“There is no constitutional right to
clemency.”); Joubert v. Neb. Bd. of Pardons, 87 F.3d
966, 968 (8th Cir. 1996) (“It is well-established that
prisoners have no constitutional or fundamental right
A “felon’s expectation that a lawfully imposed
sentence will be commuted or that he will be pardoned
is no more substantial than an inmate’s expectation,
for example, that he will not be transferred to another
prison; it is simply a unilateral hope.”
U.S. at 465 (footnote omitted).
The “denial of
clemency merely means that the inmate must serve the
sentence originally imposed.”
Ohio Adult Parole
Authority v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272, 283 (1998) (quoting
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)).
“There is no right under the Federal Constitution
to be conditionally released before the expiration of a
valid sentence, and the States are under no duty to
offer parole to their prisoners.”
Swarthout v. Cooke,
562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011) (citing Greenholtz v. Inmates
of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979)).
Hawaii prisoners have no right to release prior to
completion of a sentence pursuant to Hawaii’s parole
See Mujahid v. Apao, 795 F. Supp. 1020, 1024
(D. Haw. 1992) (determining that Hawaii’s parole regime
creates no liberty interest in parole); Rideout v. Haw.
Paroling Auth., 2014 WL 1571286, at *3 (D. Haw. Apr.
17, 2014) (collecting District of Hawaii cases).
Williams’s claim for relief is legally frivolous
and the Petition is DENIED with prejudice.
(1) Williams’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For
A Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is DENIED.
Williams’s Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis By a Prisoner, ECF No. 2, is DENIED.
Williams’s Motions for Absolute Pardon, En
Banc Hearing, and Writ of Coram Nobis, ECF Nos. 4-6,
are DISMISSED as moot.
Any request for a certificate of appealability
for the denial of this Petition is DENIED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and
close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; July 25, 2017.
/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
Williams v. Atty. General of Hawaii, 1:17-cv-00325 LEK-RLP; Habeas 2017 Williams 17325 lek (dsm 2254 no rt clemency, unexh, sol)
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?