Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Hatcher

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division

June 18, 2018

EDDIE WILLIAMS, JR., Petitioner,
v.
SHAY HATCHER, Respondent.

          MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          BRIAN K. EFPS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Petitioner brings this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and seeks permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Upon initial review pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS Petitioner's motion to proceed IFP be DENIED AS MOOT, (doc. no. 2), the petition be DISMISSED as untimely, and this civil action be CLOSED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On February 4, 2011, Petitioner pleaded guilty to felony murder in Jefferson County, Georgia, and the court sentenced Petitioner to life with the possibility of parole. (Doc. no. 1, pp. 1-2.) Petitioner did not appeal from the judgment of conviction, seek further review by a higher state court, or file a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. (Id. at 2-3.) Petitioner states he filed two previous petitions in state court in the “1990's-2000's” seeking “relief from prison” and was released from prison. (Id. 3-5.) Petitioner claims the 2011 conviction is for the same crime for which he obtained release in the 1990's and 2000's. (Id.) Specifically, Petitioner claims “the person have [sic] been killed multiple times and put back together as an [sic] robot.” (Id. at 5.) Furthermore, Petitioner claims he “didn't know how to explain that the person was already dead and was a robot” and his family would not let him know “the person wasn't the person, they made them to be such as alive or hide things in the autopsy.” (Id. at 10.) Petitioner indicates he has a “petition or appeal” pending in Muscogee County Superior Court for the judgment he is challenging. (Id. at 12.) Petitioner has been incarcerated since May 5, 2011.[1]

         Petitioner raises four grounds of error in the federal petition. (Id. at 5-11.) First, Petitioner argues his conviction violates double jeopardy, as he has been “proven innocent” of the crime “more than once.” (Id. at 5.) Second, Petitioner argues he was insane at the time of the offense. (Id. at 7.) Third, Petitioner argues he has been “proven innocent” of the same crime after filing habeas corpus petitions in the past. (Id. at 8.) Fourth, Petitioner argues he “re[a]lized he was wrong in taking a plea bargain” without a complete understanding of his case. (Id. at 10.) Petitioner states he did not raise any of these issues on appeal or through a post-conviction motion or petition for habeas corpus in a state trial court. (Id. at 5-11.) Nevertheless, he states all grounds for relief raised in the petition have been presented to the highest state court having jurisdiction. (Id. at 12.)

         Petitioner originally filed his case in the Middle District of Georgia, but United States Chief District Court Judge Clay D. Land transferred the case to the Southern District of Georgia on June 5, 2018. (See doc. no. 4.)

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Petitioner's § 2254 Motion is Untimely

         1. The Petition Is Time-Barred

         Pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), there is a one-year statute of limitations for § 2254 motions that runs from the latest of:

(1)(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.