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. Central District of California

United States District Court, C.D. California

November 15, 2017

LURENZO LEE WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
v.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent,

          HONORABLE JACQUELINE CHOOLJIAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          ORDER (1) SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND APPEALABILITY

          HONORABLE CONSUELO B. MARSHALL SENIOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. SUMMARY

         On July 27, 2017, petitioner Lurenzo Lee Williams, who is in state custody and is proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus/Petition to Have Detainer Removed (“Petition”) seeking removal of a federal supervised release violation detainer placed on him in March 2016 that assertedly is affecting petitioner's state custody level and keeping him from receiving family visits and being transferred to another facility.[1] (Petition at 3-4 [argument], 12 [detainer]). He appears to claim that the maintenance of, and the delay in lodging the federal detainer runs afoul of Article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. (Petition at 3-4).

         Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts provides that a petition for writ of habeas corpus “must” be summarily dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Here, as it plainly appears from the Petition that petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks, the Petition must be dismissed.

         II. PERTINENT BACKGROUND[2]

         On January 21, 2003, petitioner pleaded guilty in the First Federal Criminal Case to one count of violating Title 18, United States Code, section 2113(a) (bank robbery). On May 27, 2003, the assigned District Judge sentenced petitioner to a total term of 77 months in prison to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release.

         On August 2, 2006, a Complaint charging petitioner with a violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 751 (escape) was filed in the Second Federal Criminal Case. The Complaint reflects, among other things, that petitioner was placed on escape status on July 28, 2006, and that his projected release date was January 11, 2007. On August 3, 2006, petitioner was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada on an arrest warrant issued in the Second Federal Criminal Case, appeared in federal court in the District of Nevada, and was ordered detained and removed to the Central District of California. On December 19, 2006, petitioner made his initial appearance in the Central District of California in the Second Criminal Case and was ordered detained. On December 20, 2006, at the government's request, a Magistrate Judge ordered that the Complaint filed in the Second Federal Criminal Case be dismissed, that petitioner be released if in custody solely on the charge contained therein, and that petitioner be transferred by the United States Marshal's Service to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to serve the remainder of the sentence imposed in the First Federal Criminal Case. On or before January 16, 2007 (see infra note 3), petitioner was apparently released from prison and placed on supervised release.

         The docket for the First Federal Criminal Case reflects a sealed entry on February 7, 2007. In light of the other facts discussed below, the Court presumes that the District Judge in the First Federal Criminal Case issued a supervised release violation warrant on or about February 7, 2007.

         In February 2007 - around the same time that the docket in the First Federal Criminal Case reflects a sealed entry - petitioner was arrested by state authorities for the commission of multiple robberies/an attempted robbery and was thereafter charged in Los Angeles County Superior Court jury in Case No. BA316400 (“State Case”).[3] On April 30, 2009, a jury in the State Case found petitioner guilty of second degree robbery (counts 1, 2, 4, 5) and attempted second degree robbery (count 3). At a bifurcated trial on prior conviction allegations, the trial court found true allegations that petitioner suffered five prior convictions within the meaning of California Penal Code sections 1170(a)-(d), 667(b)-(i), 667(a) and 667.5(b). The trial court sentenced petitioner to a total of 95 years to life in state prison.

         On May 2, 2011, in Case No. B217434, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in the State Case. On August 24, 2011, in Case No. S194047, the California Supreme Court denied review of the judgment in the State Case.

         On August 21, 2012, petitioner filed a federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In State Custody (“First Federal Petition”), challenging the judgment in the State Case in the First Federal Habeas Case. On September 21, 2015, this Court denied the First Federal Petition and dismissed the First Federal Habeas Case with prejudice. Judgment was entered accordingly on September 22, 2015. On June 1, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability in the Ninth Circuit Action.

         On March 29, 2016 - after Judgment was entered in the First Federal Habeas Case and while the Ninth Circuit Action was pending - the United States Marshal's Service lodged with the state prison where petitioner was then housed, a “Detainer Based on Violation of Probation and/or Supervised Release” (“Detainer”) which reflects that the United States District Court for the Central District of California had issued an arrest warrant charging petitioner with violation of the conditions of probation and/or supervised release in the First Federal Criminal Case. The Docket for the First Federal Criminal Case reflects the issuance of Notices of Discrepancy and related Orders (“Discrepancy Notices”) on February 9, 2017 and April 12, 2017, rejecting requests petitioner submitted in the First Federal Criminal Case to have the Detainer removed on multiple grounds, including that petitioner may continue to be represented by counsel concerning matters relating to supervised release. Such rejected requests - which are attached to the Discrepancy Notices - reflect that (1) petitioner was released from federal prison in 2006 and placed on supervised release; (2) in 2007 he was arrested and convicted of multiple robbery charges in Los Angeles County Superior Court and sentenced to 95 years to life in state prison; and (3) on March 29, 2017 [sic], the U.S. Marshal lodged the Detainer against petitioner for a violation of supervised release in the First Federal Criminal Case.

         III. ...


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.