the district court correctly recharacterized petition for a “writ of declaratory judgment” as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
How later courts described this case
- the district court correctly recharacterized petition for a “writ of declaratory judgment” as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
- where state prisoner’s claim for declaratory and monetary relief arose solely as result of single allegedly defective disciplinary hearing, there was no error in construing suit as a habeas claim
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
EDDIE LEE WILLIAMS CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 23-1101
DONNIE BORDELON, WARDEN SECTION “G”(5)
ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Eddie Lee Williams’ (“Williams”) motion seeking
review of a May 17, 2024 decision of the assigned Magistrate Judge.1 On April 13, 2023, Williams
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court challenging the constitutionality of his 2008
state criminal judgment.2 Considering that Williams had filed a prior petition for writ of habeas
corpus related to this same state criminal judgment, this Court found that it was without jurisdiction
to consider the successive habeas petition.3 Therefore, on April 21, 2023, the Court transferred the
petition to the Fifth Circuit to determine whether Williams was authorized under 28 U.S.C.
' 2244(b) to file the successive habeas corpus petition in this Court.4 On August 2, 2023, the Fifth
Circuit denied Williams’ request for authorization to file a successive petition.5
On May 10, 2024, Williams filed a motion for declaratory judgment in this Court,
challenging the lower state courts’ ruling on his request for post-conviction relief from his state
1 Rec. Doc. 8.
2 Rec. Doc. 3.
3 Rec. Doc. 4.
4 Id.
5 Rec. Doc. 5.
criminal conviction and sentence.6 Because the Fifth Circuit had denied Williams’ motion for
authorization to proceed in this Court on a successive habeas corpus petition, the Magistrate Judge
denied the motion without prejudice.7
Williams now seeks review of the Magistrate Judge’s order.8 He asserts that the motion for
declaratory judgment is not seeking habeas relief.9 Regardless of how he frames the motion,
Williams is seeking a judgment that his state conviction is unconstitutional.10 Any challenge to the
fact and duration of confinement is properly treated as a habeas corpus proceeding.11
Before such a claim can be considered on the merits by the district court, Williams must
obtain authorization to file a successive petition from the United States Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.12 Until such time as Williams obtains said authorization, this Court is without jurisdiction
to proceed. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge did not err in dismissing the motion for declaratory
judgment. Accordingly,
6 Rec. Doc. 6.
7 Rec. Doc. 7.
8 Rec. Doc. 8.
9 Id.
10 See Rec. Doc. 6 at 3 (“[The] briefs presented to the lower state court’s are of a constitutional magnitude.
The petitioner would like a declaratory judgment on whether or not the dispute was a violation of state and federal
Constitution of the United States.”).
11 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Johnson v. Hardy, 601 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1979)
(where state prisoner’s claim for declaratory and monetary relief arose solely as result of single allegedly defective
disciplinary hearing, there was no error in construing suit as a habeas claim); Moore v. Hill, 487 F.2d 221, 222 (5th
Cir. 1973) (the district court correctly recharacterized petition for a “writ of declaratory judgment” as a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus).
12 28 U.S.C. ' 2244(b)(3)(A).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Eddie Lee Williams’ motion seeking review of a May
17, 2024 decision of the assigned Magistrate Judge’? is DISMISSED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 26th _ day of June, 2024.
sett babu BROWN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
'5 Rec. Doc. 8.