Williams v. Berkebile et al
Filing
5
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 in full. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 1/27/2016. Mailed to Williams. (TAG, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
FILED
JAN 2 7 2016
Clerk, U.S. District Court
District Of Montana
Missoula
CV 15-63-GF-DLC-JTJ
ALAN WAYNE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
ORDER
vs.
DAVID BERKEBILE, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MONTANA, et al,
Respondents.
United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered Findings and
Recommendations in this matter on September 28, 2015, recommending dismissal
of Petitioner Alam Wayne Williams's ("Williams") Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Williams filed an objection to the Findings
and Recommendations on October 19, 2015, and so is entitled to de novo review
of those findings and recommendations to which he specifically objects. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). This Court reviews for clear error those findings and
recommendations to which no party objects. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). "Clear error exists if the Court is left with a
-1-
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v.
Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). Additionally, "[w]here a petitioner's
objections constitute 'perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to engage the
district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original habeas
petition,' the applicable portions of the findings and recommendations will be
reviewed for clear error." Rosling v. Kirkegard, 2014 WL 693315, at *3 (D.
Mont. Feb. 21, 2014) (quoting Ramirez v. United States, 898 F. Supp. 2d 659, 663
(S.D.N.Y. 2012)). Because the parties are familiar with the specifics of this case,
the Court will address the factual and procedural background only as necessary to
explain its reasoning.
Williams raises three objections to Judge Johnston's Findings and
Recommendations: (1) material errors in the factual and procedural background of
the Findings and Recommendations; (2) Judge Johnston concluded without
evidence that Williams's 2011 notice of discharge related to his 2005 drug
possession conviction; and (3) the Findings and Recommendations never address
Williams' s third claim which raised conflict of interest allegations.
First, Williams argues that the Findings and Recommendations contains
multiple material errors in the "Factual and Procedural Background" section.
Notwithstanding that fact that this section of the Findings and Recommendations
-2-
is drafted with pinpoint citations to Williams' s state court orders, these alleged
errors do not affect Judge Johnston's conclusion that Williams failed to assert a
federal basis for his claims.
At the heart of Williams' s claim is the argument that the Montana
Department of Corrections improperly denied him credit for time served. Judge
Johnston correctly concluded that this exact claim was previously addressed by the
Montana Supreme Court. See Williams v. Birkebile, No. OP 15-0135 (Mont. April
29, 2015. As stated by Judge Johnston, federal habeas relief is not available for
errors in the application of state sentencing laws absent a showing of fundamental
unfairness. Christian v. Rhode, 41 F. 3d 461, 469 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, Williams
cannot show fundamental unfairness because the Montana Supreme Court issued a
reasoned decision on his claims. See Hicks. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 346 (1980)
(due process rights violated by arbitrary disregard of state sentencing laws).
Williams first objection is overruled.
Williams also objects to Judge Johnston's conclusion that his 2011 notice of
discharge pertained to the 2005 drug conviction. Williams argues that Judge
Johnston made this finding without evidence to support it. Upon review of the
record, it is clear that Williams's objection is without merit. In 2013, the Montana
Supreme Court denied William's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Williams v.
-3-
Kil/ham, et. al., OP 13-0120 (Mont. March 27, 2013). In this order, the state court
clearly found that Williams's notice of discharge was the result of his 2005 drug
conviction. Williams, OP 13-0120 at 1. Williams's second objection is overruled.
Lastly, Williams objects to the fact that the Findings and Recommendations
never address his third claim in support of his petition. Williams claims that the
judge who presided over his revocation proceedings was his former defense
attorney. Williams maintains that he told his revocation attorney about this
conflict of interest during a hearing and his attorney failed to follow Williams' s
request to have the judge recuse himself.
Williams is correct that the Findings and Recommendations never addressed
his third claim on the merits. However, before taking up Williams's first two
claims on the merits, the Findings and Recommendations began its analysis by
stating that the petition is likely procedurally and timed-barred. Indeed, Williams
third claim is procedurally barred.
Before a court may grant habeas relief, the prisoner petitioner must first
exhaust all state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b )(1 )(A) ("An application for a
writ of habeas corpus ... pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be
granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in
the courts of the State."); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). Here,
-4-
Williams indicates in his petition that he has never raised this issue in the Montana
Supreme Court through either a direct appeal, a post-conviction appeal, or a
petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 1 at 9.) Thus, Williams has failed to
exhaust his state court remedies and this Court is precluded from hearing his
petition as to the third claim.
Accordingly, the Court reviews the remainder of Judge Johnston's Findings
and Recommendations for clear error and, finding none,
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Johnston's Findings and Recommendations
(Doc. 3) are ADOPTED IN FULL. Williams's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Doc. 1) is DENIED for lack of merit.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter, by
separate document, a judgment of dismissal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
DATED this
1-1'-
~
day of January,
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?