JAMES EDWARD WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS, ASHLEY COUNTY; CHICOT COUNTY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a pro se status and educational background are insufficient cause for failing to pursue state-court remedies, thus affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief.
Williams, convicted of murder in 1974, did not appeal or file postconviction actions. He later filed for habeas corpus, claiming he failed to pursue s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Coleman V. Thompson cases and more on FLexlaw
HANSON, Senior District Judge.
Williams appeals the decision of the district court1 denying his petition for habeas corpus relief. We affirm.
In 1974, Williams was found guilty of first degree murder in Arkansas and sentenced to life imprisonment. He did not appeal the conviction nor file any state postconviction action. In 1989, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254.
In his petition and at an evidentiary hearing Williams contended he did not pursue any state remedies because he believed he lacked sufficient education and because he mistakenly believed an appeal was pending. United States Magistrate Beverly Stites recommended to the district court that the petition be considered procedurally barred because this was not sufficient cause under Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977), for failing to raise his claims in state court. The district court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the petition with prejudice.
Petitioner asserts that the deliberate bypass approach set out in Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963), should be used when considering procedural default where the petitioner has failed to file any appeal or postconviction action. The Supreme Court overruled Fay in Coleman v. Thompson, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). Thus, this argument fails.
Petitioner argues in the alternative that if Fay does not govern this case then the district court erred in its application of Wainwright. In Smittie v. Lockhart, 843 F. 2d 295 (8th Cir.1988), we held a petitioner’s “pro se status and educational background are not sufficient cause for failing to pursue state-court remedies.” Id. at 298. These are precisely the same reasons Williams advances here. The district court correctly found no cause for petitioner’s procedural default.
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable Oren Harris, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1977)
- FAY v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1963)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1991)
- Smittie v. A.L. Lockhart, 843 F.2d 295 (8th Cir. 1988)