Williams v. Lumpkin

• Decision Date: 01 October 2021
• Docket Number: 3:20-CV-3030-N
• Parties: ERIC LYLE WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. BOBBY LUMPKIN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

ERIC LYLE WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. BOBBY LUMPKIN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

No. 3:20-CV-3030-N

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

October 1, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS & NOTICE OF POTENTIAL RULE 11 VIOLATIONS

DAVID C. GODBEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The matters before the Court are (1) Williams' unopposed motion to exceed this court's Local Rules governing page limitations on pleadings in capital habeas cases (specifically Local Rule CV-7.5), filed September 15, 2021 (ECF no. 58) and (2) the existence of potential violations of Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P., contained in Williams' original federal habeas corpus petition filed September 15, 2021 (ECF no. 59).

Motion to Exceed Page Limitations

This court's Local Rules wisely limit the number of pages all parties may include in their respective pleadings in capital habeas cases to 100 pages for a petition and an answer and 25 pages for a reply brief. For good cause the Court is authorized to extend those limitations.

The fundamental problems with Williams' unopposed motion to exceed page limits are (1) the motion does not explain (or even offer a clue) as to what good cause might exist for exceeding the foregoing page limits in this case; (2) the motion does not explain how much of an extension each of the parties will need beyond the limitations set out by this court's Local Rules; and (3) the motion was filed contemporaneously with Williams' original federal habeas corpus petition which exceeds 200 pages in length and is accompanied by 47 exhibits totaling approximately 973 pages. Furthermore, as explained below, at least three of the claims presented in Williams' original petition (i.e., claims 15, 16, and 17 found on pp. 189-201 of ECF no. 59) appear to violate the requirements of Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P., in that they present legal arguments that have repeatedly been rejected by the Fifth Circuit and federal District Courts in Texas and which the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to review on certiorari yet Williams' original petition makes absolutely no reference to any of the well-settled case law in this Circuit rejecting the legal arguments underlying each of these three claims.

Historically this court has been generous in granting motions seeking leave to exceed the page limitations established by Local Rule CV-7.5. But in every case in which such an extension was granted, the party requesting the extension did the courtesy of explaining (1) why the party believed such an extension was necessary and (2) prospectively suggesting exactly how much of an extension would be necessary. In contrast, in this case the parties simply filed an excessive federal habeas corpus petition and asked this court to waive the Local Rules' page limitations because “good cause exists for extending the page limitation.”

The parties have already agreed to effectively delay final briefing in this case by jointly requesting entry of a new scheduling order, which this court granted (ECF no. 57) allowing Williams until next March to file an Amended Petition and absolving Respondent of any obligation to respond to Williams' original petition. Another problem with the parties' latest request to this court is its open-ended nature. They offer no clue as to just how lengthy Williams' proposed Amended Petition will be, nor how long Respondent's proposed Answer to the Amended Petition might be, nor how long Williams' Reply brief will be. At least some reasonable degree of specificity is required. This court will not grant the parties carte blanche to inundate the Clerk with a series of excessively lengthy pleadings absent at least some rational explanation for why such is necessary in this particular case. Before granting an exemption from this court's Local Rule governing page limitations in capital habeas cases, this court needs, at a minimum, a rational explanation for why such an extension is needed and a good faith estimate of how much of an extension of the cap on pages is necessary for each party to adequately present its case. The current motion furnishes neither.

Despite reviewing Williams' original petition, this court has no assurance that this case presents anything more complex than a typical capital habeas case. Neither the facts of the capital offense in question nor the legal issues raised by Williams in his original petition appear to involve anything unique to, or uncommon in, typical capital habeas litigation in this court. Williams presents ineffective assistance claims not dissimilar to those ineffective assistance claims presented in a great many other capital habeas cases in this court, as well as challenges to the constitutionality of the Texas capital sentencing statutes and Williams' jury charge which mirror those of myriad capital habeas cases that have come before this and other Texas federal courts. See, e.g., Holberg v. Lumpkin, 2021 WL 3603347, *27-*54, *96-*148 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2021) (addressing a wide variety of constitutional challenges to the Texas capital sentencing scheme, several of which mirror Williams' claims in his original petition, as well as myriad claims of ineffective assistance); Broadnax v. Davis, 2019 WL 3302840, *9-*13, *44-*51 (N.D. Tex. July 23, 2019) (addressing multiple constitutional challenges to the Texas capital sentencing scheme, some of which mirror Williams' claims in his original petition, as well as many ineffective assistance claims), Aff'd, 987 F.3d 400 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. filed Aug. 21, 2021 (no. 21-267); Hernandez v. Davis, 2017 WL 2271495, *20-*44 (W.D. Tex. May 23, 2017) (rejecting a wide variety of ineffective assistance claims more factually complex that those presented by Williams in his original petition), CoA denied, 750 Fed.Appx. 378 (5th Cir. Oct. 29, 2018), cert. denied, 140 S.Ct. 136 (2019); Gamboa v. Davis, 2016 WL 6613280, *9-*30 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2016) (rejecting as bordering on the legally frivolous many constitutional challenges to the Texas capital sentencing scheme, including some of the very same legal arguments raised by Williams in his original petition herein), CoA denied, 782 Fed.Appx. 297 (5th Cir. Aug. 1, 2019); Garza v. Thaler, 909 F.Supp.2d 578, 611-87 (W.D. Tex. 2012) (disposing of a plethora of ineffective assistance claims as well as myriad constitutional challenges to the Texas capital sentencing scheme, including many of those presented by Williams in his original petition), CoA denied, 738 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 949 (2014).

Williams' original federal habeas corpus petition exceeds 200 pages. Yet it presents claims no more factually or legally complex than those presented in any of the cases listed immediately above. Despite the fact that Holberg presented far more claims in terms of sheer numbers than did Williams, and the fact the vast majority of Holberg's claims were far more complex both factually and legally than those contained in Williams' original petition, Holberg's federal habeas counsel filed an amended petition that was only 167 pages in length. Likewise, Broadnax's federal habeas counsel needed only 176 pages in their amended petition to present a series of claims which included a highly complex, multi-faceted, Batson claim, along with many of the same borderline frivolous challenges to the Texas capital sentencing scheme contained in Williams' claims 15, 16, and 17. Based upon a PACER review, the operative pleadings in the Hernandez, Gamboa, and Garza capital habeas cases cited above from the Western District of Texas were likewise well below 200 pages in length. More specifically, the amended petition in Hernandez was 73 pages; the amended petition in Garza was 170 pages; and the original petition in Gamboa was 50 pages. Considering the number and complexity of the claims raised in Williams' original petition, the court is not inclined to grant authorization for more than 200 pages for the amended petition.

There may very well be legitimate reasons, i.e., good cause, for the parties to request an identifiable extension on this court's Local Rules' page limitations on pleadings in this case. But, thus far, the parties have not made a good faith effort to explain what those reasons might be. At this juncture, the unopposed motion to exceed the page limitations set out in Local Rule CV-7.5 will be denied without prejudice. The parties are advised that if they choose to refile their motion jointly, they should include therein (1) at least some explanation of what the “good cause” for exceeding the page limits they cryptically identified in their present motion might be and (2) proposed caps on the pages to be included in Williams' proposed Amended Petition, Respondent's proposed Answer, and Williams' proposed Reply brief, all of which need to be tied rationally to the “good cause” set forth in the parties' future motion. The parties are also encouraged to request an extension of Local Rule CV-7.5's page limitation before filing their excessively lengthy pleadings. The maxim “it is easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission” has no application in this context.

Notice of Potential Rule 11 Violations

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part that an attorney filing a litigation document (including a federal habeas corpus petition) certifies that the document (1) is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation and (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending,...