Williams v. United States of America, No. 3:2016cv00626 - Document 16 (E.D. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 08/15/2017. Copy mailed to Williams. (tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. United States of America Doc. 16 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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:
]]>
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.
