Williams-Bey v. Sheriff

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Omarr Royale Williams-Bey. The Petition is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 because the Petition is unexhausted. Petitioner DENIED a Certificate of Ap pealability pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11. Petitioner DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Clerk DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 8/11/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party).(cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
OMARR ROYALE WILLIAMS-BEY,
Petitioner,
vs.
SHERIFF,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 2:17-CV-244

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28
U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 and 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by
Omarr Royale Williams-Bey, a prisoner without a lawyer, on May 31,
2017. For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES habeas
corpus relief pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 because
the petition is unexhausted, DENIES a certificate of appealability
pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11, and DENIES Omaar
Royale Williams-Bey leave to appeal in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

DISCUSSION
In his petition, Williams-Bey’s challenges his status as a
pre-trial detainee. From his petition, it appears that he is
currently being held without bond at the Lake County Jail on

charges of robbery. “Ordinarily the attempt of a state prisoner to
obtain federal habeas corpus relief in advance of his state
criminal trial [is] completely hopeless.” United States ex rel.
Stevens v. Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, 675 F.2d 946, 947
(7th Cir. 1982). This is one of those ordinary cases. Though the
circuit in Stevens provided for a narrow exception to entertain
some double jeopardy claims, this case does not present a double
jeopardy claim. Here, Williams-Bey argues that he has been denied
various

due

process

rights

regarding

his

criminal

charges.

However, these are questions to be resolved in the first instance
by the State trial court or the State Appellate Courts – not this
court. Thus, to the extent that Williams-Bey believes that he has
a viable defense to the charges against him, he needs to first
present those claims to the State courts – at trial, on appeal,
and ultimately to the Indiana Supreme Court. See Lewis v. Sternes,
390 F.3d 1019, 1025-1026 (7th Cir. 2004). Therefore, this petition
will be dismissed without prejudice. Then, after he has properly
presented his claims to the Indiana Supreme Court, he may return
to this Court and file another habeas corpus petition challenging
the conviction, if necessary.
Pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11, a court must
consider whether to grant or deny a certificate of appealability.
Evans v. Circuit Court of Cook Cty., Ill., 569 F.3d 665, 666 (7th
2 

Cir. 2009) (pretrial detainee cannot appeal without a certificate
of appealability). To obtain a certificate of appealability when
the

court

petitioner

dismisses
must

show

a

petition

that

on

reasonable

procedural
jurists

grounds,
would

find

the
it

debatable (1) whether the court was correct in its procedural
ruling and (2) whether the petition states a valid claim for denial
of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000). Here, there is no basis for finding that jurists of reason
would debate the correctness of this procedural ruling. Therefore
there is no basis for encouraging petitioner to proceed further.
Thus a certificate of appealability must be denied. For the same
reasons, he may not appeal in forma pauperis because an appeal
could not be taken in good faith.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES habeas
corpus relief pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 because
the petition is unexhausted, DENIES a certificate of appealability
pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11, and DENIES Omaar
Royale Williams-Bey leave to appeal in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

DATED: August 11, 2017

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
3