Lawrence Williams, Jr. v. Henry Grayson

Sixth Circuit

Lawrence Williams, Jr. v. Henry Grayson

977 F.2d 584, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 37740, 1992 WL 266822

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 30, 1992

Docket91-2087

StatusUnpublished

This text of 977 F.2d 584 (Lawrence Williams, Jr. v. Henry Grayson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lawrence Williams, Jr. v. Henry Grayson, 977 F.2d 584, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 37740, 1992 WL 266822 (6th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

977 F.2d 584

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Lawrence WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Henry GRAYSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 91-2087.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Sept. 30, 1992.

Before RYAN and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges, and ENGEL, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Lawrence Williams, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court did not reach the merits, dismissing Williams' petition because of a procedural default in the state courts and Williams' failure to demonstrate adequate cause for the default. We affirm.

A habeas corpus petitioner who has procedurally defaulted in state court must show cause and actual prejudice before he will be allowed to present an unexhausted claim in federal court. See Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 298 (1989). The error in this case, failure to file pleadings in a timely fashion, in and of itself is not sufficient cause to excuse the failure to exhaust state remedies. See Coleman v. Thompson, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2566 (no "cause" where attorney failed to file timely appeal). That Williams proceeded pro se before the district court does not require a different conclusion in this case. See Barksdale v. Lane, 957 F.2d 379, 385-86 & n. 15 (7th Cir.1992) (petitioner's status as a pro se petitioner, standing alone, cannot be considered when determining cause for procedural default), petition for cert. filed, July 27, 1992 (No. 92-5311); McKinnon v. Lockhart, 921 F.2d 830, 832 n. 5 (8th Cir.1990) (pro se status and lack of legal knowledge cannot alone constitute cause), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2805 (1991). In any event, as noted by the district court, "petitioner has demonstrated sufficient sophistication to require him to have observed the 56-day rule."

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

977 F.2d 584

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Lawrence WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Henry GRAYSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 91-2087.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Sept. 30, 1992.

Before RYAN and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges, and ENGEL, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Lawrence Williams, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court did not reach the merits, dismissing Williams' petition because of a procedural default in the state courts and Williams' failure to demonstrate adequate cause for the default. We affirm.

A habeas corpus petitioner who has procedurally defaulted in state court must show cause and actual prejudice before he will be allowed to present an unexhausted claim in federal court. See Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 298 (1989). The error in this case, failure to file pleadings in a timely fashion, in and of itself is not sufficient cause to excuse the failure to exhaust state remedies. See Coleman v. Thompson, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2566 (no "cause" where attorney failed to file timely appeal). That Williams proceeded pro se before the district court does not require a different conclusion in this case. See Barksdale v. Lane, 957 F.2d 379, 385-86 & n. 15 (7th Cir.1992) (petitioner's status as a pro se petitioner, standing alone, cannot be considered when determining cause for procedural default), petition for cert. filed, July 27, 1992 (No. 92-5311); McKinnon v. Lockhart, 921 F.2d 830, 832 n. 5 (8th Cir.1990) (pro se status and lack of legal knowledge cannot alone constitute cause), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2805 (1991). In any event, as noted by the district court, "petitioner has demonstrated sufficient sophistication to require him to have observed the 56-day rule."

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

977 F.2d 584, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 37740, 1992 WL 266822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-williams-jr-v-henry-grayson-ca6-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack