Williamson v. Marquis

N.D. Ohio

Williamson v. Marquis

DecidedMay 17, 2021

Docket1:18-cv-00472

StatusUnknown

This text of Williamson v. Marquis (Williamson v. Marquis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williamson v. Marquis, (N.D. Ohio 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Michael Williamson, Case No. 1:18-cv-472

Petitioner,

v. ORDER

Harold May, Warden,

Respondent.

On February 26, 2021, Petitioner Michael Williamson filed a motion for relief from judgment from my January 7, 2020 Memorandum Opinion and Order overruling his objections, adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke, and denying in part and dismissing in part his grounds for relief stated in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 52). Williamson previously appealed my decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded Williamson failed to state a colorable claim for relief and denied his application for a certificate of appealability. (Doc. No. 49). Williamson appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, which declined to issue a writ of certiorari. (Doc. No. 51). Williamsons claims I denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus through “mistake and inadvertence,” and that I failed to recognize the state-court prosecutor committed a fraud on the court. (Doc. No. 52 at 2-5). He also contends his sentence in effect is one for life without parole, which was an improper “trial tax.” (Id. at 5). Williamson is not entitled to relief from judgment. His motion reiterates some of the arguments I previously rejected, and which also were rejected by the Sixth Circuit. (See Doc. Nos. 41 and 49). A movant may not obtain relief under Rule 60(b) by repeating the same, unsuccessful arguments. See, e.g., Kersh v. Macomb St. Clair Employment Training Agency, 55 F. App’x 723, 724-25 (6th Cir. 2003). Therefore, I deny his motion for relief from judgment. (Doc. No. 52). Further, I certify there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. §

2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). So Ordered.

s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Michael Williamson, Case No. 1:18-cv-472

Petitioner,

v. ORDER

Harold May, Warden,

Respondent.

On February 26, 2021, Petitioner Michael Williamson filed a motion for relief from judgment from my January 7, 2020 Memorandum Opinion and Order overruling his objections, adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke, and denying in part and dismissing in part his grounds for relief stated in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 52). Williamson previously appealed my decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded Williamson failed to state a colorable claim for relief and denied his application for a certificate of appealability. (Doc. No. 49). Williamson appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, which declined to issue a writ of certiorari. (Doc. No. 51). Williamsons claims I denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus through “mistake and inadvertence,” and that I failed to recognize the state-court prosecutor committed a fraud on the court. (Doc. No. 52 at 2-5). He also contends his sentence in effect is one for life without parole, which was an improper “trial tax.” (Id. at 5). Williamson is not entitled to relief from judgment. His motion reiterates some of the arguments I previously rejected, and which also were rejected by the Sixth Circuit. (See Doc. Nos. 41 and 49). A movant may not obtain relief under Rule 60(b) by repeating the same, unsuccessful arguments. See, e.g., Kersh v. Macomb St. Clair Employment Training Agency, 55 F. App’x 723, 724-25 (6th Cir. 2003). Therefore, I deny his motion for relief from judgment. (Doc. No. 52). Further, I certify there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. §

2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). So Ordered.

s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Williamson v. Marquis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-marquis-ohnd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack