United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
SHAWN K. WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
JEFF NORMAN, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. SIPPEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on petitioner's application
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The petition is successive and shall be summarily dismissed.
of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts provides that a district court shall
summarily dismiss a § 2254 petition if it plainly
appears that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 in May 1996. Williams v.
Bowersox, No. 4:96-CV-939 CAS (E.D. Mo.) He subsequently
filed an amended petition. On September 28, 1999, the Court
dismissed petitioner's petition and amended petition.
Id. Petitioner appealed, and the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied petitioner's
request for certificate of appealability on February 14,
2000. Williams v. Bowersox, No. 99-3890
(8th Cir. 2000).
28, 2010, petitioner filed, in his closed habeas corpus
action, a “Petitioner Pro-Se Motion for U.S.C.S. Fed.
Rules Civ. Procedure 60(d)” along with a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Respondent filed a
response to the motion on July 19, 2010. Petitioner then
filed a separate motion requesting that his Rule 60(d) motion
be filed as an independent action under Rule 60(d)(3). The
Court granted petitioner's request and analyzed
petitioner's request for relief as both “fraud on
the Court” and an end-run around the AEDPA's
limitations on filing a successive habeas corpus
action. See Williams v. Dormire, No.
4:10-CV-1413 CAS (E.D.Mo.). Petitioner's action was
denied and dismissed on August 17, 2010. Id.
filed a similar Rule 60(b) action, alleging
“fraud” against the State of Missouri for
“failing to transcribe petitioner's guilty
plea” on September 7, 2010. See Williams v.
Dormire, No. 4:10-CV-1660 (E.D.Mo.). The Court denied
and dismissed petitioner's action on September 20, 2010.
Id. The Eighth Circuit denied petitioner's
request for certificate of appealability on January 19, 2011.
See Williams v. Dormire, No. 10-3232 (8th
instant application for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner
argues that the Supreme Court case of McQuiggin v.
Perkins, 133 S.Ct. 1924 (2013), provides him grounds for
relief from the procedural default he suffered in his
original habeas action, in addition to solving his one-year
statute of limitations difficulties. He is incorrect.
McQuiggin, the Supreme Court held that a prisoner
filing a first-time federal habeas
petition could overcome the one-year statute
of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) upon a showing
of Aactual innocence@ under the Schlup v. Delo, 513
U.S. 298, 329 (1995), standard. See
McQuiggin, 133 S.Ct. at 1928. Critically, the
holding in McQuiggin was based on the Supreme
Court's conclusion that Congress, through its silence on
the issue, had not intended to eliminate the pre-existing
equitable Aactual innocence@ exception for an
untimely first-time filer. See Id. at 1934.
On the other hand, the Court expressly recognized that
Congress, through § 2244(b), had intended to
Amodify" and Aconstrain[ ]" the
Aactual innocence" exception with respect to
second or successive petitions. See Id. at
1933-34. Nothing in McQuiggin authorizes a court to
ignore or bypass these constraints.
extent that petitioner seeks to relitigate claims that he
brought in his original petition, those claims must be denied
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). To the extent that
petitioner seeks to bring new claims for habeas relief,
petitioner must obtain leave from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit before he can bring those
claims in this Court. 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner has not been granted leave to
file a successive habeas petition in this Court. As a result,
the petition shall be denied and dismissed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's
petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED AND
DISMISSED AS SUCCESSIVE
IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of
appealability shall issue.
Petitioner requested relief from the
denial of his habeas corpus action, alleging
“fraud” by respondent's counsel for failing
to provide the Court with a copy of the transcript of his
guilty plea. The Court was aware of the missing transcript at
the time it reviewed petitioner's application for writ of
habeas corpus. The absence of the transcript was clearly
noted by the Honorable Mary Ann Medler in her Report and
Recommendation. See Williams v. Dormire, No.
4:96-CV-939 CAS, Docket No. 28. Judge Medler found that
because she accepted as ...