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:
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?