Williams v. Kelly, No. 5:2017cv00017 - Document 23 (E.D. Ark. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER adopting in their entirety 21 the proposed findings and recommendations; granting 7 respondent Wendy Kelley's motion to dismiss and dismissing this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action is dismissed in its entirety; dismissing, without prejudic e, Williams's claims regarding his conviction and sentence in Williams v. State, 1997 WL 160778 (Ark. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 1997), so that Williams can seek authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive habeas action; an d dismissing, with prejudice, as untimely, Williams's claims regarding the convictions and sentences in Williams v. State, 331 Ark. 263, 962 S.W.2d 329 (Ark. 1998), and Williams v. State, 2000 WL 546653 (Ark. Sup. Ct. May 4, 2000). A certificate of appealability will not be granted because Williams has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 8/25/2017. (kdr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Kelly Doc. 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION JACKIE LEE WILLIAMS ADC #093224 v. PETITIONER CASE NO. 5:17CV00017 BSM WENDY KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT ORDER The proposed findings and recommendations [Doc. No. 21] submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray have been received along with petitioner Jackie Williams’s objections. See Doc. No. 22. After careful consideration of the record, the proposed findings and recommendations are adopted in their entirety. Accordingly, respondent Wendy Kelley’s motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 7] is granted and this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action is dismissed in its entirety. Williams’s claims regarding his conviction and sentence in Williams v. State, 1997 WL 160778 (Ark. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 1997) is dismissed, without prejudice, so that Williams can seek authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), to file a successive habeas petition. Williams’s claims regarding the convictions and sentences in Williams v. State, 331 Ark. 263, 962 S.W.2d 329 (Ark. 1998), and Williams v. State, 2000 WL 546653 (Ark. Sup. Ct. May 4, 2000), are dismissed, with prejudice, as untimely. A certificate of appealability will not be granted because Williams has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). Dockets.Justia.com IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of August 2017. ________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
