United States v. Williams

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 14, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-30687
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ARTHUR WILLIAMS, also known as Pop,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(05-CV-306)
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arthur Williams, federal prisoner # 08395-035, filed in the
district court for the Eastern District of Texas a habeas corpus
application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The case was assigned
to a magistrate judge who determined that § 2241 was an
inappropriate vehicle for the relief requested by Williams, but
rather that his claims fell under the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Without forwarding the matter on to a district court judge or
making any findings regarding whether the petition met the

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 05-30687
-2-
requirements of § 2255’s savings clause, the magistrate judge
ordered it transferred to the district court in the Western
District of Louisiana, the court that had sentenced Williams.
The Western District of Louisiana then dismissed Williams’s
petition without prejudice, ruling that it had neither
jurisdiction to consider his petition as one under § 2241 nor
jurisdiction to treat it like a § 2255 motion, as Williams had
already filed several § 2255 motions and had not been granted
permission to file a successive motion.
Although Williams has filed a motion for a certificate of
appealability (COA), we agree with his assertion that a COA is
not required. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425
(5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, a COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.
Williams also moves for a transfer back to the district
court for the Western District of Louisiana with orders that that
court transfer his case back to the Eastern District of Texas for
a ruling on his § 2241 petition. The magistrate judge in the
Eastern District of Texas lacked the discretion, if not the
authority or jurisdiction, to transfer Williams’s case to the
Western District of Louisiana. See Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370,
373 (5th Cir. 2001); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Based on the foregoing, Williams’s request for transfer to
the district court for the Western District of Louisiana is
GRANTED for the limited purpose of that court’s transfer of the
case to the Eastern District of Texas for a ruling by a district

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 05-30687
-3-
court judge. In transferring this matter back to district court,
this court makes no determination regarding the Eastern District
of Texas magistrate judge’s prior finding that Williams’s 2241
application must be construed as a § 2255 motion and makes no
instruction as to how the application should be construed.
COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; MOTION TO TRANSFER GRANTED FOR
THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT COURT’S TRANSFER OF THE
MATTER BACK TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FOR A RULING BY A
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

-- 3 of 3 --