Williams v. Miles

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 1. Petitioner Jason Ryan Williams's objections (Doc. No. 25 ) to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's June 22, 2017 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's Jun e 22, 2017 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 22 ) is ADOPTED. 3. Jason Ryan Williams's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. No. 1 ) is DENIED. 4. Williams's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 17 ) is DENIED. 5. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 6. No certificate of appealability is issued. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/20/2017. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Jason Ryan Williams,

Civil No. 16-3868 (DWF/SER)

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Warden Eddie Miles,
Respondent.

This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner Jason Ryan Williams’s objections
(Doc. No. 25) to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau’s June 22, 2017 Report and
Recommendation (Doc. No. 22) insofar as it recommends that: (1) Petitioner’s Petition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody be
denied; (2) Petitioner’s “Motion to Dismiss” be denied; (3) this action be dismissed with
prejudice; and (4) if the Report and Recommendation is adopted, a Certificate of
Appealability not be issued, and judgment be entered accordingly. Respondent Warden
Miles filed a response on August 30, 2017. (Doc. No. 27.) Petitioner filed a response on
September 11, 2017. (Doc. No. 28.)
The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and precisely set
forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference for purposes of
Petitioner’s objections. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record,
including a review of the arguments and submissions of counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b). In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate

Judge considered Petitioner’s “motion to dismiss,” wherein Petitioner asks the Court to
“dismiss” the State’s response to his Petition because the State failed to file a timely
response to the Petition and “inadvertent error” does not constitute good cause. The
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge in that the Court has the inherent authority to set
deadlines and that the Court acted within that authority in setting a deadline for the State
to respond. In addition, Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that
Petitioner’s current (second) federal habeas petition be dismissed because the Court lacks
jurisdiction. Petitioner argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Montgomery v.
Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 732 (2016), which held that Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460
(2012) (holding that sentencing schemes mandating life in prison without possibility of
parole for juvenile offenders are unconstitutional) announced “a substantive rule that is
retroactive in cases on collateral review” constitutes a new rule of constitutional law that
would make his second Petition timely. The Magistrate Judge rejected Petitioner’s
arguments and explained that the dismissal of Petitioner’s first untimely petition was a
dismissal on the merits, Montgomery did not create a new rule of constitutional law, and
therefore Petitioner’s petition does not meet an exception to the general prohibition
against second or successive petitions. Finally, the Court notes that even if the petition
was timely, the Court would still deny it, as Petitioner was sentenced to two consecutive
life sentences (with release after 30 years) and there is no authority holding that Miller
extends to the discretionary imposition of consecutive sentences.

2

After a careful de novo review of the record and all of the arguments and
submissions of the parties and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the
Court finds no reason that would warrant a departure from the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation. Based on the Court’s review, the Court hereby enters the following:
ORDER
1.

Petitioner Jason Ryan Williams’s objections (Doc. No. [25]) to Magistrate

Judge Steven E. Rau’s June 22, 2017 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau’s June 22, 2017 Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. [22]) is ADOPTED.
3.

Jason Ryan Williams’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas

Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. No. [1]) is DENIED.
4.

Williams’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. [17]) is DENIED.

5.

This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

6.

No certificate of appealability is issued.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: September 20, 2017

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

3