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. Allbaugh

United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma

March 21, 2018

DAVID B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
v.
JOE M. ALLBAUGH, DOC Director, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          RONALD A. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This action is before the Court on Respondent's motion to dismiss Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner, a pro se prisoner in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (“DOC”) who is incarcerated at Davis Correctional Facility in Holdenville, Oklahoma, is attacking the execution of his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court has before it for consideration the petition (Dkt. 1), Respondent's motion (Dkt. 7), and Petitioner's response (Dkt. 8). Petitioner has raised four grounds for relief:

Ground I: Petitioner was granted parole on July 23, 2008. He, however, was not notified of the parole decision or that his parole was revoked without a due process hearing or adequate notice. In addition, Petitioner's classification assignment was changed to maximum security.
Ground II: DOC officials failed to correct the consequences of sanctions against Petitioner after dismissal of a misconduct written on September 2, 2015. Officials later failed to restore him to medium security and continued to hold him in maximum security, which resulted in the denial of parole reviews.
Ground III: Petitioner is considered a “management problem, ” which is a vague and inconsistent label used to retaliate against him and to deprive him of parole reviews by maintaining his maximum security classification without meaningful review.
Ground IV: The State failed to release Petitioner on parole in 2008. Once he discharged his 25-year sentence, the Pardon and Parole Board should have determined how long he would have to serve on his concurrent 60-year sentence before being considered for parole. An ex post facto violation occurred.

(Dkt. 1 at 4-6).

         Statute of Limitations

         Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, alleging in part that the petition is barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitioner does not dispute that his claims are time-barred. Section 2244(d) provides:

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run 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 ...

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.