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. Attorney General of State

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

July 25, 2017

MAUNU RENAH WILLIAMS, #A6070389, Petitioner,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF STATE OF HAWAII, OREGON, WASHINGTON, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS, NEW YORK, Respondents,

          ORDER DENYING PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ORDER DENYING PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge

         Before the court is Petitioner Maunu Renah Williams's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner, Motion for Absolute Pardon, Motion for En Banc Hearing, and Motion for Writ of Coram Nobis. ECF Nos. 1, 2, 4-6. Williams names the Attorneys General of the States of Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, California, New York, and Texas as Respondents to the Petition and seeks “commutation, clemency, pardon by [President] Donald Trump [and Governor] David Y. Ige.”[1] Williams says he “wrote to the Governor and White House, F.B.I., etc., ” but has received no response. He alleges the failure to grant him clemency has or will violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

         Williams's Petition is DENIED and his Motions are DISMISSED. Any request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

         I. DISCUSSION

         Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the court to summarily dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”

         A. Procedural Defects in the Petition

         First, it appears that Williams seeks relief from the judgments of conviction in more than one state court that were apparently entered in several different states. Williams must file a separate petition for each judgment that he challenges in each respective court. See Rule 2(e).

         Second, a federal court may not entertain a habeas petition unless the petitioner has exhausted all available and adequate state court remedies with respect to all claims in the petition. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). A wholly unexhausted petition must be dismissed. Id. To the extent that Williams challenges his conviction in State v. Williams, 3PC141000469, to which he vaguely refers and for which he is presently incarcerated, he explicitly and repeatedly states that he has not appealed or otherwise challenged that judgment.[2] See Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID #2-14; see also eCourt Kokua: https://jimspss1.courts.state.hi.us/JEFS. (last visited July 18, 2017). Williams's Petition is therefore subject to dismissal as unexhausted.

         Third, a petition brought under § 2254 must be filed within the applicable one-year statute of limitation. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The period of limitation runs from the latest of

(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 exercise of due diligence.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The statute of limitation is tolled while “a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or ...


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.