Williams v. USA, No. 20-10422 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-10422 Document: 00516126611 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 20-10422 Summary Calendar December 10, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Marshall Dewayne Williams, Petitioner—Appellant, versus United States of America, Respondent—Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:20-CV-834 Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Marshall Dewayne Williams, federal prisoner # 14130-077, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. He argues that dismissal was error, urging that, because the district court accepted his petition for filing, jurisdiction was proper. * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-10422 Document: 00516126611 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2021 No. 20-10422 “To entertain a § 2241 habeas petition, the district court must, upon the filing of the petition, have jurisdiction over the prisoner or his custodian.” United States v. Brown, 753 F.2d 455, 456 (5th Cir. 1985); see also ReyesRequena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 895 n.3 (5th Cir. 2001). Because Williams was incarcerated in the federal prison located in Coleman, Florida, at the time of filing, the district court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over his § 2241 petition. See Brown, 753 F.2d at 456; ReyesRequena, 243 F.3d at 895 n.3. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Williams’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212– 13 (5th Cir. 1982). His motion to expedite the appeal is likewise denied. Further, because the instant petition is Williams’s third attempt to raise the same good-time-credit claim that he has previously raised, he is cautioned that future frivolous, repetitious, or otherwise abusive filings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and/or restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. AFFIRMED; MOTIONS WARNING ISSUED. 2 DENIED; SANCTION
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
