Opinion
Case No. CV412-019
03-28-2012
RONNIE WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Warden BRIAN OWENS, Georgia State Prison, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Without so much as a hint that he has run his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claims through this Court five times before, see Williams v. Henderson, CV408-105, docs. 7, 11 & 12, 2008 WL 4949056 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 19, 2008) (dismissing fifth § 2254 petition as successive), Ronnie Eugene Williams once again petitions this Court for § 2254 relief on the same conviction and sentence. CV412-019, doc. 1. He also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2.
The Court GRANTS his IFP motion (doc. 2) but again rules that, "[b]ecause the instant petition is successive and petitioner has not sought or received authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file it, this Court is not at liberty to consider it. Accordingly, the Court should DISMISS this petition as successive." 2008 WL 4949056 at * 2.
The Court warns Williams that it will deem him a vexatious litigant and sanction him if he makes any more baseless habeas-based filings. See, e.g., Shivers v. United States, 427 F. App'x 697, 700 (11th Cir. 2011) (prisoner was a vexatious litigant, warranting sanctions, where, after denial of writ of habeas corpus, he filed nine post-conviction motions and petitions, four of which he followed with unsuccessful motions for reconsideration, six of the motions and petitions sought to challenge validity of his conviction on basis of allegedly defective or fraudulent search warrants and affidavits, district courts had repeatedly instructed him that his claim was not cognizable unless he was granted permission to raise it in a successive habeas motion, which had not been granted, and prisoner continued to raise claim that he was statutorily prohibited from pursuing).
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 2012.
________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
See also United States v. Perkins, 424 F. App'x 328, 329 (5th Cir. 2011) (sanctioning forewarned, serially filing federal inmate "$455, payable to the clerk of this court," and until he paid it he could file no more pleadings of any kind challenging his conviction); Mitchell v. Pearson, 390 F. App'x 407, 408 (5th Cir. 2010) (after affirming the denial of a baseless 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition filed by movant who failed to show why § 2255 was not an adequate remedy, court cautioned movant that he would face sanctions, including "monetary sanctions," for "any future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings....").