Williams v. United States of America

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 08/15/2017. Copy mailed to Williams. (tjoh, )

IN THE UNITED
FOR THE

STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

SHANNON D.

WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,
V.

Civil Action No.

3:16CV626

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a bench trial,
of various drug offenses,

Shannon D.

Williams was convicted

three counts of murder while engaged

in a drug conspiracy,

and one count of use of a

firearm during

and in relation to a

drug conspiracy,

in death,

was sentenced to life in prison.

85 F. App'x 341,

345

resulting

and

See United States v. Williams,

(4th Cir.

2004) .

The United States Court

of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed his convictions and
sentence.

Id.

By

January 20,

2006,

the Court denied Williams's 28 U.S.C.

motion.

United

3:05CV100-JRS,
Since

that

challenges
States V.

(E.D.

Va.

States

v.

2006 WL 167659,

time,

to

Memorandum

Williams

his

has

conviction

Williams,

No.

June 10,

2015)

Opinion

and

Williams,

at

*6

and

2015

(dismissing a

Va.

the

sentence.

3:02-CR-85-1,

Nos.

(E.D.

inundated

Order

entered

on

§ 2255

3:02CR85-JRS,

Jan.

Court

See,

20,

2006).

with various

e.g.,

WL 11109787,

United
at

*1-3

"Motion for Declaratory

Judgment"
§ 2255

and a

Rule

motions);

Williams

4759248,

at *3

Writ

Mandamus"

of

(outlining

60(b)

(E.D.

Va.

as

prior

Motion as
v.

Galindo,

Sept.

4,

legally

successive,
No.

2013)

3:11CV649,

filings

2016,

Court

2013

WL

(dismissing ''Motion for

frivolous) ;

frivolous

unauthorized

see

seeking

also

his

id.

at

release

*1

from

incarceration).

On July

"Complaint

26,

for

("Complaint,"

the

Declaratory

ECF

No.

received

Judgment

1.)

By

a

Fed.

document

R.

Memorandum

Civ.

Opinion

titled,

P.

57"

and

Order

entered on April 3, 2017, the Court dismissed the Complaint as a
successive,

unauthorized

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

motion

because

Williams once again challenged the validity of his conviction.
On

April

27,

2017,

the

Court

"Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
("Rule 59(e)

received
(Fed.

R.

from

Civ.

Williams

Proc.

a

59(e))"

Motion," ECF No. 15).

"[R]econsideration

of

a

judgment

after

its

entry

is

an

extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly."

Pac. Ins.

Co.

(4th

V.

1998)

The

Am.

Nat^l

(citation

United

Fire

Ins.

omitted)

States

Court

Co.,

148

(internal

of

F.3d

396,

quotation

Appeals

for

the

403

marks

omitted).

Fourth

recognizes three grounds for relief under Rule 59(e);
accommodate

an

account

for

correct

a

intervening

new

clear

evidence

error

of

change

in

controlling

not

available

law

or

prevent

at

trial;

manifest

Cir.

Circuit

"(1)

to

law;

(2)

to

or

(3)

to

injustice."

Hutchinson

v.

Staton,

994

(citing Weyerhaeuser Corp.
1419

(D.

F.R.D.

Md.

625,

1991);

626

(S.D.

While Williams
relief,
relief

the

Williams
to

Court

pauperis,

correct

v.

Atkins
Miss.

fails

1076,

Koppers
v♦

1081

Co. ,

771

Marathon

Cir.

Supp.

F.

1993)

1406,

LeTourneau

Co. ,

130

identify on which ground he seeks

argues

that

clear error of

the

law.

Court

should

Williams

erred when i t granted him leave

but then dismissed his Complaint,

successive § 2255 motion.

(4th

1990)).

to

seemingly
a

F.2d

grant

argues

to proceed m

that

forma

as an unauthorized,

Williams contends that,

10) Had the court, after review,

found that it did not

have jurisdiction, it would have dismissed the instant
matter under
proceedings.

11) However,

Rule

4

of

the

rules

governing

§

2255

Plaintiff was ordered to pay the initial

partial filing fee.

12) The court by law was to review this proceeding
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
(Rule 59(e) Mot. 3.)

Contrary to Williams suggestion, the Court

appropriately

screened

this

action

pursuant

§ 1915(e)(2).

Williams labeled his action as a "Complaint for

Declaratory Judgment Fed. R. Civ. P. 57."

to

(Compl. 1.)

the fact that he labeled the action as a Complaint,
his

insistence

"that this action

nor a successive § 2255"
civil action.

[was]

28

not a

U.S.C.

Based on
and due to

28 U.S.C.

§ 2255,

(Compl. 1), the Court filed it as a new

In order for an inmate to proceed m
civil

actions,

he

must

first

satisfy

forma pauperis in such

the

payment

requirements

before the Court will review the content of a complaint.

U.S.C.

§ 1915 (a) (1) - (2) ,

(b) (1) - (4) .

been granted leave to proceed m
Court

screen

proceed

the

action.

Only after an inmate has

forma pauperis status, will the

After

forma pauperis,

granting

jurisdiction.
attempt

to

successive

Thus,

circumvent
§ 2255

the

motions

rules

candor with the

Court,

amount of the filing fee."

would warrant
59(e)

Motion

in fact,

is

the

that

prohibit

cause

of

a mislabeled

fails

Rule

he

the

the

filing

manner

After insisting that

successive § 2255 motion,

Williams

the action

he cannot now argue that he

is now

Due to Williams's lack

"required to pay the

(ECF No.

15)

proceeding unless a

unless a

28

U.S.C.

relief.

Accordingly,

law that

Williams's Rule

will be denied.

judge issues a
§

prisoner makes

full

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

to demonstrate any clear error of

59(e)

of

in which

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

(^^COA").

to

Williams's lack of candor with the Court in an

really intended it to be such a motion.
of

leave

the Court dismissed the action for lack of

the Court handled the action.
was not a

Williams

the Court proceeded to the screening

stage and found that the Complaint was,
§ 2255 motion.

See 28

§ 2255

certificate of appealability

2253(c)(1)(B).

A

COA

will

not

issue

"a substantial showing of the denial of

a

constitutional

requirement

is

debate whether

right."

28

satisfied only when
(or,

should

have

been

issues

presented

for

were

in

agree

different

'adequate

to

jurists could

that)
manner

deserve

This

the petition
or

that

encouragement

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(quoting Barefoot v.

Estelle,

Williams

satisfy

to

a

§ 2253(c) (2) .

^^reasonable

that matter,

resolved

proceed further.'"

fails

U.S.C.

463 U.S.
this

880,

893 & n.4

standard.

the

to

(2000)

(1983)).

Accordingly,

a

certificate of appealability will be denied.
The

Clerk

is

directed

to

send

a

copy

of

the

Memorandum

Opinion to Williams.
It

is

so ORDERED.

/./
Robert E.

/Lti'

Payne

Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Date: