Williams v. Pearce

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: that the District Judge DISMISS with prejudice Franklin L. Williams's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (kkc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
FRANKLIN L. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
V.
MIKE PEARCE,1 WARDEN,
FCI BASTROP,
Respondent

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

A-13-CV-002-SS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO:

THE HONORABLE SAM SPARKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Petitioner Franklin L. Williams’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Clerk’s Doc. No. 1). The Magistrate Judge submits this Report and
Recommendation to the United States District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 1 of
Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
I. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Petitioner Franklin L. Williams (“Williams”), Reg. No. 12952-021, is currently a federal
prisoner incarcerated in the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) pursuant to a judgment and sentence in
Criminal Case No. 5:06-CR-00014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia. Clerk’s Doc. No. 1. Williams is serving time after a jury found him guilty of one count

1

When Williams filed the instant case, he named the “Warden” and the United States
Marshal Service as defendants. However, the appropriate respondent for habeas corpus claims under
§ 2241 is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is being held. As such, the Court has
changed the responding party accordingly. The United States Marshal Service should not be a party
to this habeas corpus petition.

of distribution of more than five grams of cocaine base and one count of distribution of more than
fifty grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). See United States v. Williams, No.
5:06-CR-014-WTM-JEG, ECF No. 49-1. Williams was sentenced on June 20, 2007, to 292 months
of imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently with his revoked state parole term for a
1997 state conviction in Georgia for possession of cocaine. Id., ECF No. 62 at 2. Williams’s
convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Williams, 262 F. App’x
165 (11th Cir. 2008). Since 2007, Williams has been transferred to a number of different federal
correctional institutions, including FCI-Bastrop, where he is currently serving his sentence.
Williams is an abusive filer and has continuously flooded the federal courts with lawsuits,
none of which have been successful. This Court has already detailed his extensive history of filing
cases in the federal courts. See Consolidated Report and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge, Dkt. No. 25 in 1:12-CV-368-SS; Dkt. No. 14 in 1:12-CV-506-SS; and Dkt. No.
6 in 1:12-CV-936-SS. In February, Judge Sparks adopted the recommendations in these cases, and
imposed both monetary and filing sanctions. Order dated Feb. 13, 2013 in 1:12-CV-368-SS, 1:12CV-506-SS, and 1:12-CV-936-SS. Williams has also been warned twice by the Fifth Circuit against
“frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings” and that continuing to do so could subject him
to the imposition of sanctions. See Williams v. Tamez, 476 Fed.Appx. 6 (5th Cir. 2012); Williams
v. Tamez, 466 Fed.Appx. 326 (5th Cir. 2012).
In Williams’s instant petition for habeas corpus under § 2241—which was filed before the
sanctions and filing limitations recently imposed by Judge Sparks were entered—he brings claims
that are almost identical to his previous habeas petitions. Broadly construed, Williams alleges: (1)
that he is being denied due process and access to the courts resulting from the loss of his property;
(2) that he is actually innocent of the charges against him; and (3) that his federal and state sentences
2

are illegal and that the court’s delay in review of his sentences denies him justice. The first two
claims were already considered by this Court a previous habeas petition by Williams. See Clerk’s
Doc. No. 25 in cause number 1:12-CV-368-SS. Consequently, the Court simply reiterates here that
regarding Williams’s first two claims in the instant habeas petition, he has failed to properly bring
his claims for the same reasons as set forth in the Court’s previous Report and Recommendation, and
Judge Sparks’ Order adopted those recommendations.
As to Williams’s claim that his federal and state sentences are illegal and that delays in
review deny him justice, the Court also finds that Williams has failed to properly bring his claims.
If Williams seeks to contest his 1997 sentence in Georgia state court, the proper provision for doing
so is 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Pleasant v. Texas, 134 F.3d 1256, 1258 n.3 (5th Cir. 1998) (recognizing
that challenges to convictions under Texas law are properly brought under § 2254). If Williams is
challenging his 2007 federal sentence, those claims are properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425–26 (5th Cir. 2005). In the instant case, Williams
seeks relief under § 2241, which should be “used to attack the manner in which a sentence is
executed.” See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). Because a challenge to the
legality of Williams’s federal and state sentences does not “attack the manner in which a sentence
is executed,” his claim may not be properly brought under § 2241 and should be dismissed.
II. RECOMMENDATION
The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Judge DISMISS with prejudice
Franklin L. Williams’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Clerk’s
Doc. No. 1). Because this suit was filed before sanctions were imposed against Williams, it would
not be appropriate to impose any additional sanctions on Williams at this time.

3

V. WARNINGS
The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing
objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are
being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See
Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations
contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report
shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Report and, except upon grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from
appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the
District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985);
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
To the extent that a party has not been served by the Clerk with this Report &
Recommendation electronically pursuant to the CM/ECF procedures of this District, the Clerk is
directed to mail such party a copy of this Report and Recommendation by certified mail, return
receipt requested.
SIGNED this 8th day of March, 2013.

_____________________________________
ANDREW W. AUSTIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4