# Williams v. Stanton

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · June 20, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10240437

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** June 20, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10240437

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION

RAHSHID WILLIAMS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) No. 2:24-CV-44 SRW
)
CLAY STANTON, )
)
Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of self-represented Petitioner Rahshid
Williams’s two-page filing titled, “Nunc Pro Tunc,” in which he asserts the Missouri Probation
and Parole Board wrongfully calculated his sentence related to a state court conviction. ECF No.
1. The Court construes this filing as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1
The Court finds the petition is defective because it has not been drafted on a Court-provided
form. See Local Rule 2.06(A) (“All actions brought by self-represented plaintiffs or petitioners
should be filed on Court-provided forms where applicable. If an action is not filed on a Court-
provided form, the Court, in its discretion, may order the self-represented plaintiff or petitioner to
file the action on a Court-provided form.”). The form must be completed in its entirety and
sufficiently show that Petitioner exhausted the remedies available to him in the courts of the state
in which the petitioner was convicted.2

1 Section 2254 supplies federal jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by the inmates challenging their state
convictions or sentences, or the execution of those state sentences, including the issues of parole, term calculation,
etc. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In contrast, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2255 confer jurisdiction over the petitions filed by
federal inmates.

2 A state prisoner must exhaust available state remedies before obtaining federal habeas relief. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,
526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Exhaustion is satisfied by showing petitioner “made a fair
presentation of his claims to the state courts or he has no other presently available state remedies to pursue.” Gentry
v. Lansdown, 175 F.3d 1082, 1083 (8th Cir. 1999); accord Meador v. Branson, 688 F.3d 433, 435 (8th Cir. 2012).
Additionally, Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or filed a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mail to Petitioner a
copy of the Court’s form “Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person
in State Custody.”
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail to Petitioner a copy of
the Court’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file an amended petition on the Court-
provided form within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Petitioner is advised that his
amended petition will take the place of his original petition and will be the only pleading that this
Court will review.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall either pay the $5 filing fee or submit
an application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs within thirty (30) days
of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Petitioner fails to comply with this Order, the Court
will dismiss this action without prejudice.
Dated this 20th day of June, 2024.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10240437. Public record. Not legal advice.