Williams v. Wolf
| Decision Date | 12 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:20-cv-286 |
| Parties | FREDERICK VERNON WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. CHAD F. WOLF et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Honorable Robert J. Jonker
This is an action by a federal prisoner seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) on a detainer issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), purportedly under Rule 65(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 However, as Rule 82 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, "'[t]hese rules shall not be construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the United States district courts . . . .'" Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 454 (2004) (quoting 12C C. Wright, A. Miller, & R. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3141, pp. 484-85 (2d ed. 1997)); see also Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 370 (1978). As a consequence, Rules 65(a) and (b) do not independently provide a basis for this Court's jurisdiction.
Petitioner does not expressly indicate the jurisdictional basis for his filing. However, he seeks to be released on bond from the custody of the DHS. Arguably, he may intend to pursue a petition to reopen, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(7), his removal determination before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which found him inadmissible at the time of entry under8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A). Alternatively, Petitioner may intend his pleading to be construed as a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. When docketing the filing, this Court classified the case as such a petition.
Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a preliminary review of the petition to determine whether "it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (applicable to § 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the petition must be summarily dismissed. Rule 4; see Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (). A dismissal under Rule 4 includes those petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well as those containing factual allegations that are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, the Court concludes that the petition must be dismissed because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
Petitioner Frederick Vernon Williams was incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Prisons at the North Lake Correctional Facility. He has since been transferred to the custody of the INS and is housed at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility.
On January 19, 2016, following a 10-day jury trial in the District of Nevada, Petitioner was found guilty of Counts 1-4, 8-16, 19-20, 22, 28-30, and 32-33 of the third superseding indictment, including convictions on the following offenses: one count of making a false statement in application for a passport, 18 U.S.C. § 1532 (Count 1); two counts of making a false citizenship claim, 18 U.S.C. § 911 (Counts 2, 8); two counts of aggravated identity theft, 18U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (Counts 3, 29); five counts of theft of government money and aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 2 (Counts 4, 28, 30, 32-33); conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count 9); and ten counts of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Counts 10-16, 19-20, 22). On July 22, 2016, the court entered judgment, imposing the following sentences: 63 months' imprisonment on Counts 1, 4, 9-16, 19, 20, 22, 28, 30, 32-33; 36 months' imprisonment on Counts 2 and 8, all to run concurrently; 24 months' imprisonment on Counts 3 and 29 to run consecutively, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 87 months. United States v. Williams, No. 2:12-cr-463 (D. Nev. July 22, 2016) (J. in Criminal Case, Doc. 834.)
Petitioner's criminal convictions arose from a passport scheme undertaken by Petitioner and his half-sister to obtain citizenship for themselves and others and to use that citizenship to obtain federal benefits. According to the criminal proceedings, Petitioner submitted his application for citizenship using supporting documents purporting to demonstrate that he was the son of a deceased United States citizen, Eric Lee Williams, who had lived in northern Nevada. Petitioner's birth certificate, however, named his father as Eric Alexander Williams. Id. (Roland Testimony, T. Tr. I, Doc. 778 at p.22). Petitioner successfully obtained a United States passport. Petitioner then used a similar method to obtain citizenship for his half-sister, who had a different father. Thereafter, Petitioner used his passport to petition to make his mother a permanent resident and for his Belizean fiancée to come to the United States. She subsequently sought welfare assistance. Petitioner and his sister also used false information about fake Nevada companies and fictitious wages to obtain unemployment benefits, social security benefits, federal student loans, and food stamps. While investigating the suspected passport fraud, agents interviewed the mother of the deceased Eric Lee Williams, who reported that her son, a Native American, had never leftthe United States and only had children born to two United States citizens.2 Investigation showed that Eric Alexander Williams, the name on Petitioner's birth certificate,3 was a Belizean national, who had been deported on several occasions from the United States, including once when he was using a visa obtained in the name of Eric Brakeman. Id. (Doc. 778 at p. 27). In convicting Petitioner of making a false statement in application for a passport, 18 U.S.C. § 1532, the jury found that Petitioner was not the son of a United States citizen.
Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentences to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a memorandum decision issued on March 22, 2018, the Ninth Circuit rejected all appellate arguments and affirmed the decisions of the district court. United States v. Williams, No. 16-10330 (9th Cir. Mar. 22, 2018) (DktEntry: 89-1).
On August 14, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence in the District of Nevada. Williams, No. 2:12-cr-463 (Doc. 966). Among the arguments he makes in his § 2255 petition is that he is actually innocent of the offenses, because he is a United States citizen. Petitioner's § 2255 motion remains pending.
According to the allegations of the instant habeas application, Petitioner contends that he is a citizen of the United States, as the second son of an American-citizen father and a Belize-citizen mother, who was born in Belize on September 27, 1980. He first entered the country on June 20, 2000, using a non-immigrant visa issued by the American embassy in Belize. In November 2004, the Secretary of State determined that Petitioner was a United States citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) and issued him a passport. His passport subsequently was revoked.
On December 16, 2012, DHS initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner, alleging that he is deportable for the following reasons: (1) he is not a citizen or national of the United States; (2) he is a native and citizen of Belize; (3) he was admitted to the United States on November 2, 2012, with a fraudulently obtained United States passport; (4) he did not then possess or present a nonimmigrant visa or other document valid for admission; and (5) on August 13, 2012, he pled guilty in the Clark County, Nevada, Circuit Court to attempted theft, in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 205.0832, 205.0835, 193.330. Petitioner was detained by DHS after his release from the custody of Nevada after Petitioner had pleaded guilty to the Nevada state criminal charge, but before he was sentenced on that charge.
Petitioner appeared before an immigration judge (IJ) on January 13, 2013, where he conceded that he was born in Belize, but contended that he was a United States citizen by virtue of his father's citizenship. However, because he was tired of being detained, Petitioner requested release on bond and voluntary departure. The IJ granted the request for bond, which was set at $10,000, but denied the request for voluntary departure. Petitioner was unable to pay the bond amount and therefore requested an order of removal, purportedly in order to get out of DHS custody. To support his request for an order of removal, Petitioner expressly denied any interest in disputing that he was subject to deportation and was not a citizen of the United States. The IJ granted the order of removal.4 Williams v. Barr, No. 14-72532 (9th Cir.) Petitioner appealed the removal order. The BIA dismissed Petitioner's appeal as untimely. Id. (Nov. 18, 2013, BIA Order, DktEntry: 6, Page 156).
Petitioner filed two motions to reopen the removal decision. The first motion, filed on February 12, 2013, shortly after the IJ entered the order of removal, sought to resurrect Petitioner's claim of citizenship, which he had just abandoned. The IJ denied the motion on February 20, 2013, because his claim of citizenship was unsupported by evidence, despite Petitioner's promise to provide such supporting documentation. Id. . Petitioner filed a second motion to reopen in December 2013, again arguing that he was a citizen. The IJ denied the motion on January 21, 2014, because the motion was time-barred and constituted an unauthorized second motion to reopen. Id. (Certified Admin. Record, Jan. 21, 2014, IJ Decision, DktEntry: 6, Page 106). Petitioner appealed the IJ's decision to the BIA. Id. (Appeal to BIA, DktEntry: 6, Page12-27). The BIA dismissed the appeal in an order issued on July...
To continue reading
Request your trial