Williams v. F C I Oakdale

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 1 ORDERED that petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 is DISMISSED as time-barred. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's request for additional time to file supplemental briefing is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 9/10/12. (CEL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DARRELL HENRY WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
RICHARD B. IVES,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV652 JCH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of petitioner’s response to the
Order to Show Cause.1 Having carefully reviewed petitioner’s response, the Court
concludes that his arguments are without merit and that the instant action is timebarred.
Petitioner pled guilty to two charges of second degree assault in 1983. The
Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis sentenced petitioner to seven years’
imprisonment on April 1, 1983. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal or any
motions for post-conviction relief.

1

On July 23, 2012, the Court ordered petitioner to show cause as to why the
Court should not dismiss the instant application for writ of habeas corpus as timebarred.

On September 12, 2011, petitioner filed an application for writ of habeas
corpus seeking to overturn his conviction and sentence in the Western District of
Louisiana. After the case was transferred to this Court, the Court ordered petitioner
to show cause why the instant matter should not be dismissed as time-barred, given
that petitioner’s application for writ was filed more than eighteen years after his
state court conviction became final.
In his response to show cause, petitioner asserts that a recent Supreme Court
case applies to the matter at hand. Specifically, petitioner claims that he never had a
full and fair opportunity to litigate his constitutional claims in a lower court with the
benefit of counsel, therefore, he should not be held to the time constraints outlined
in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). On behalf of his argument, petitioner cites to the
Supreme Court case of Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012).
In Martinez, the Supreme Court held that “[w]here, under state law, claims of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral
proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a
substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral
proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective.” Id.
at 1320.

-2-

In a convoluted argument, petitioner broadly asserts that Martinez should be
interpreted as a message from the Supreme Court to “respect the Federal
Constitutional rights of prisoners in initial review collateral proceedings.” He
appears to be claiming that because this is his first “collateral review” of his 1983
conviction, the Court should give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him to
proceed with his claims for relief despite them being filed more than eighteen years
late.
What petitioner seems to be missing is that Martinez does not mention statute
of limitations arguments under § 2244(d) or the effect its holding should have on
timeliness analyses under requests for habeas relief; thus, it has absolutely no
bearing on the instant case.
Having fully reviewed petitioner’s arguments to the contrary, the Court
reaffirms its prior finding that the instant petition is time-barred under § 2244(d).
Although petitioner requests an additional sixty days to file supplemental briefing on
the matter, the Court finds that no additional briefing is necessary. As such,
petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed as untimely.
Accordingly,

-3-

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED as time-barred. Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s request for additional time to
file supplemental briefing is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Dated this 10th day of September, 2012.

/s/Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-