Williams, Jr. v. Bradley

Filing 26

ORDER denying 19 Motion to Dismiss; denying 22 Motion for TRO; denying 22 Motion for Hearing; adopting Report and Recommendations re 23 Report and Recommendations as the opinion of this Court; denying 25 Motion for TRO; denying 25 Motion to Transfer. The Motions are denied without prejudice, and this matter is stayed and held in abeyance pending William's exhaustion of state court remedies. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 8/2/16. (RLW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DONALD WILLIAMS, JR.

PETITIONER

v.

CAUSE NO. 1:15CV422-LG-FKB

UNKNOWN BRADLEY, Warden

RESPONDENT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation [23] entered by
United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball in this matter filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Judge Ball recommends that this matter should be stayed and held
in abeyance until the petitioner Donald Williams, Jr., exhausts his state court
remedies. He further recommends that the Motion to Dismiss [19] filed by the
respondent Unknown Bradley should be denied without prejudice. Williams has
filed an Objection [24] to the Report and Recommendation. After reviewing the
record in this matter and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Report and
Recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of this Court.
BACKGROUND
On July 26, 2012, Williams was convicted by a jury of failing to register as a
sex offender in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 45-33-33(1)(a). He was sentenced as a
habitual offender to life imprisonment. Williams appealed the conviction, claiming
that “his right to due process was violated and that he was subjected to double
jeopardy in violation of the United States Constitution.” Williams v. State, 167 So.
3d 252, 256 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). On June 9, 2015, the Mississippi Court of

Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. Id. at 259. On November 5, 2015,
Williams filed a Motion entitled “Rule 99-35-5 Motion and Motion Post Conviction
Relief Motion [sic]” in which he requested “de novo review and rehearing to the
Mississippi Supreme Court . . . .” (Respondent’s Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 19-3). The
Mississippi Supreme Court construed Williams’s Motion as a motion for rehearing,
not as a motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-355. (Respondent’s Mot., Ex. D, ECF No. 19-4). Therefore, it denied the Motion as
untimely. (Id.) Williams then filed the present habeas petition, alleging double
jeopardy and denial of his right to due process. The respondent has filed a Motion
to Dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and Williams has filed
two Motions for a Temporary Restraining Order [22, 25], a Motion for Evidentiary
Hearing [22], and a Motion to Transfer [25].
DISCUSSION
Federal courts are prevented from granting habeas relief unless the
petitioner has exhausted available state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
“Exhaustion requires that a petitioner first present the substance of his federal
claims to the highest state court either through direct appeal or by state collateral
review procedures.” Hatten v. Quarterman, 570 F.3d 595, 605 (5th Cir. 2009). “To
provide the State with the necessary ‘opportunity,’ the prisoner must ‘fairly present’
his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court with
powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal nature of
the claim. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (citing Duncan v. Henry, 513
-2-

U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)). In order
to “fairly present” his claim, the petitioner must present his claim to the highest
state court in a “procedurally proper manner.” Nickleson v. Stephens, 803 F.3d 748,
753 (5th Cir. 2015).
Since the Mississippi Supreme Court construed Williams’s post-trial Motion
as a motion for rehearing, Judge Ball found:
[I]t can be inferred that the [Supreme Court] would consider a properly
filed motion for post-conviction relief . . . . If this is the case, Williams
has an available remedy in state court, and some of his claims, based
on such broad constitutional labels as presented here, could remain
unexhausted. Thus his petition may be construed as a “mixed
petition,” i.e., containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, and
would ordinarily be subject to dismissal unless Williams were to
amend his petition to present only his exhausted claims.
(Report and Recommendation at 5, ECF No. 23). Judge Ball found that this matter
should be stayed and held in abeyance, particularly since Williams had attempted
to file a motion for post-conviction relief but the Mississippi Supreme Court had
construed the Motion as an untimely motion for rehearing.
Williams filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. He
primarily addresses the merits of his habeas petition in the Objection. With regard
to the question of exhaustion, Williams merely reiterates that his post-trial motion
was entitled “Rule 99-35-5 Motion and Motion Post Conviction Relief Motion [sic].”
The Court finds that Judge Ball’s Report and Recommendation should be
adopted as the opinion of this Court. Since the Mississippi Supreme Court
construed Williams’s Motion as a motion for rehearing that it summarily denied as

-3-

untimely, Williams still has an available remedy in state court and the claims
asserted in his habeas petition have not been fairly presented to the Mississippi
Supreme Court. Furthermore, this matter should be stayed and held in abeyance
pending Williams’s exhaustion of state court remedies. See Rhines v. Weber, 544
U.S. 269, 277 (2005) (holding that a stay is appropriate when there is good cause for
the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims in state court). The Respondent’s
Motion to Dismiss is denied without prejudice.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and
Recommendation [23] entered by United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball is
ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. This matter is STAYED AND HELD IN
ABEYANCE pending William’s exhaustion of state court remedies.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to
Dismiss [19] filed by the respondent Unknown Bradley, the Motions for a
Temporary Restraining Order [22, 25] filed by Donald Williams, Jr., the Motion for
Evidentiary Hearing [22] filed by Donald Williams, Jr., and the Motion to Transfer
[25] filed by Donald Williams, Jr. are DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 2ndday of August, 2016.

s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-