Williams v. Kelley, No. 17-1892 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseIn three consolidated cases, the court concluded that the motion for relief and the petition for writ constitute second or successive habeas applications, and denied authorization for the district court to consider them; petitioner's claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to undertake an investigation into juror bias or misconduct was sufficiently similar to a habeas corpus application; and, even if the court were to conclude that the motion was not a second or success habeas petition, petitioner has not shown extraordinary circumstances that would justify relief. The court denied petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability as moot; petitioner's protective application to file a second or successive habeas petition; and motions for stay of execution that were currently pending in each of the three cases.
Court Description: Per Curiam. Before Wollman, Riley, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Death Penalty Appeal. Upon transfer by the district court of a motion for relief from judgment asserting juror misconduct and bias, and an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting ineligibility to be executed based on intellectual disability, as an application for successive motion under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2244(b), this court agrees these matters constitute a second or successive habeas application and authorization is denied. Even if it were not a second or successive habeas petition, William has not shown "extraordinary circumstances" justifying relief from judgment. Williams's protective application to file a second or successive petition habeas petition is also denied. In Williams's appeal from the district court's transfer order, the application for a certificate of appealability is denied as moot. The motions for stay of execution are denied. Judge Kelly concurs in part and dissents in part.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.