Williams v. Wallace

Filing 5

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no order to show cause shall issue at this time as to respondent, because the inst ant petition appears to be time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order as to why the Court should not dismiss the instantapplication for a writ of habeas corpus as time-barred. Petitioners failure to file a show cause response shall result in the denial of the instant habeas corpus petition and the dismissal of this action as time-barred. 2 ( Show Cause Response due by 8/16/2013.) Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 7/16/13. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
IAN WALLACE,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-1154-HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon petitioner Christopher Williams’
application for leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing
fee. Upon consideration of the financial information provided with the application,
the Court finds that petitioner is financially unable to pay any portion of the filing fee.
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Having
reviewed the petition, the Court will order petitioner to show cause as to why the
Court should not dismiss the instant petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1).
The Petition
Petitioner, an inmate at the Southeast Correctional Center, seeks release from
confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his March 13, 2003

conviction for first degree robbery, armed criminal action, and first degree burglary
imposed by the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, Missouri. Petitioner states
that he was sentenced to concurrent sentences of life, thirty-five years, and fifteen
years. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on April 6, 2004.
Thereafter, petitioner filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief with the
trial court. The motion was denied, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision on September 1, 2009. See Williams v. State, 291 S.W.3d 377 (Mo.App.E.D.
2009). In the instant action, petitioner asserts numerous grounds of ineffective
assistance of trial, appellate, and post-conviction counsel. He also alleges that the
trial court committed prejudicial error by allowing the introduction of certain
evidence and refusing to allow defense counsel to question a witness from the St.
Louis County Lab. He also claims that his right against double jeopardy was
violated.
Discussion
Both 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts provide that a district court may summarily dismiss a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus if it plainly appears that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief.
A review of the instant petition indicates that it is time-barred under 28 U.S.C.
2

§ 2244(d)(1)1 and is subject to summary dismissal. The denial of petitioner’s Rule
24.035 motion was affirmed on September 1, 2009; however, the instant application
for federal habeas corpus relief was not signed until June 10, 2013, well after the
running of the one-year limitations period.
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no order to show cause shall issue at this
time as to respondent, because the instant petition appears to be time-barred under 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause within thirty
(30) days of the date of this Order as to why the Court should not dismiss the instant
application for a writ of habeas corpus as time-barred. Petitioner’s failure to file a

1

Section 101 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,
Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (enacted on April 24, 1996), amended 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244 by adding a one-year limitations period to petitions for writs of habeas corpus.
3

show cause response shall result in the denial of the instant habeas corpus petition
and the dismissal of this action as time-barred.
Dated this 16th day of July, 2013.

_________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4