United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division
ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
STAN BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Ronnie Eugene Williams (“Williams”), filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Williams also filed a Motion to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2.) The Court DENIES Williams'
in Forma Pauperis Motion. For the reasons which
follow, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Williams'
Petition. I also RECOMMEND the Court DENY Williams in
forma pauperis status on appeal.
an inmate at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia, has
filed an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his
Petition, Williams claims that he has fully served his
twenty-year sentence for a burglary conviction obtained in
the Chatham County, Georgia, Superior Court. Accordingly,
Williams requests that the Court order the Georgia Department
of Corrections to release him from prison.
has unsuccessfully presented his claims to this Court on at
least twelve (12) prior occasions. See Williams v.
Allen, No. 4:17-cv-36 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 22, 2017) (Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending
dismissal of his twelfth Section 2254 attempt); see also
Williams v. Allen, No. 4:16-cv-324 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 15,
2016) (imposing $500 sanction after petitioner filed an
eleventh petition for habeas relief, despite prior warnings);
Williams v. Owens, No. 4:12-cv-19 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 28,
2012); Williams v. State Board of Pardon &
Paroles, No. 4:08-cv-105 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 19, 2008);
Williams v. Barrow, No. 4:05-cv-167 (S.D. Ga. Oct.
24, 2005); Williams v. Johnson, No. 4:03-cv-69 (S.D.
Ga. Oct. 16, 2003); Williams v. Johnson, No.
4:02-cv-44 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 14, 2002); Williams v.
Smith, No. 495CV176 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 4, 1995). The Court
has warned Williams that he may not file additional habeas
petitions challenging his sentence obtained in the Chatham
County, Georgia, Superior Court absent permission from the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or
successive habeas petition. In addition, Williams has
recently been warned on at least two occasions that he will
be sanctioned if he continues to file habeas petitions in
contravention of the Court's Order that he do so only
with permission from the Eleventh Circuit. Williams v.
Allen, No. 4:16-cv-324 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 10, 2017), ECF No.
8, p. 2 (“Williams is now WARNED that any more habeas
(or similar) petitions he files without Eleventh Circuit
authorization . . . are extremely likely to be considered
vexatious and [met] with sanctions.”); Williams v.
Allen, No. 4:17-cv-36 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 19, 2017), ECF No.
7, p. 2 (“Petitioner is warned . . . that any future
unauthorized and meritless petitions are likely to be met
with sanctions.”). The Eleventh Circuit recently denied
Williams' Application for Leave to File a Second or
Successive Habeas Corpus Petition, which Williams attaches to
his Petition. (Doc. 1, pp. 11-15.) Despite the Eleventh
Circuit's denial of his Application, Williams has filed
yet another habeas petition in this Court contesting his
twenty-year burglary sentence.
Dismissal as Unauthorized Second or Successive Petition
to Rule 4 of the Rules governing petitions brought under 28
U.S.C. § 2254:
The clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge . .
., and the judge must promptly examine [the petition]. If it
plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the
clerk to notify the petitioner.
a second or successive application is filed in a district
court, the applicant “shall move in the
appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the
district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(A) (emphasis supplied); see also
Rule 9, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A district court
lacks jurisdiction to consider a “second or
successive” habeas corpus petition that was not
previously authorized by an appellate court. Burton v.
Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (holding that district
court lacked jurisdiction to entertain second habeas petition
since prisoner did not obtain order authorizing him to file
the petition); Fugate v. Dep't of Corr., 301
F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (same).
“gatekeeping” requirement transfers a second or
successive application from the district court to the court
of appeals, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1631, as a motion for
authorization to proceed in district court. See Felker v.
Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 (1996). “If applicable,
section 1631 authorizes a transfer that is in the interest of
justice.” Guenther v. Holt, 173 F.3d 1328,
1330-31 (11th Cir. 1999). However, a transfer may not be
authorized in certain instances, as set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b). This Section provides:
(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus
application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior
application shall be dismissed.
(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus
application under section 2254 that was not presented in a
prior application shall be dismissed,
(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule
of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court, ...