Hillie v. Williams et al

Filing 15

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. CASE CLOSED. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 4/24/18. (tab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
GREGORY MARQUE HILLIE

PETITIONER

V.

NO. 4:17-CV-70-DMB-RP

JUDGE CHARLES WEBSTER and
JUDGE LINDA COLEMAN

RESPONDENTS

CONSOLIDATED WITH
GREGORY MARQUE HILLIE

PETITIONER

V.

NO. 4:17-CV-135-DMB-JMV

SHERIFF KEVIN WILLIAMS and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

RESPONDENTS
ORDER

On March 27, 2018, in these consolidated cases, the Court dismissed Gregory Marque
Hillie’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the lead case, No. 4:17-cv-70. Doc. #11. The same
day, this Court issued an order for Hillie to show cause why his petition in the remaining case, No.
4:17-cv-135, should not also be dismissed because it “challenges the same pending charges as
those in the petition dismissed in No. 4:17-cv-70.” Doc. #12. Hillie timely responded to the order
to show cause on April 6, 2018. Doc. #14.
In his response to the order to show cause, Hillie makes several indiscernible assertions,
none of which show how his remaining petition is distinguishable from his previously-dismissed
petition.1 See id. Indeed, No. 4:17-cv-70 and No. 4:17-cv-135 were consolidated because “the

1
In his response, Hillie generally discusses his indictment by a grand jury, a “motion comparison,” and an alleged
cover-up—although, it is unclear what is being covered-up and by whom. Doc. #14.

two petitions challenge the same charges pending against [Hillie] in the Bolivar County Circuit
Court.” Doc. #10. Because Hillie has not shown why the petition in No. 4:17-cv-135 should not
be dismissed for the same reasons as the petition in the lead case, his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus in No. 4:17-cv-135 is also DISMISSED.2
SO ORDERED, this 24th day of April, 2018.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Because Hillie is a pretrial detainee, his petition for writ of habeas corpus is construed as a petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. While a Court must “issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
applicant” who brings a § 2254 petition, such is not necessary for § 2241 petitions. Rule 11 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Courts; see Montano v. Texas, 867 F.3d 540, 547 n.8 (5th Cir.
2017) (“Because Montano is correctly proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a certificate of appealability is not
required.”); Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 2005) (no certificate of appealability required before
habeas petitioner appealed dismissal of § 2241 habeas petition).

2