United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division
ORDER DISMISSING CASE, CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT
BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND NOTIFYING PLAINTIFF OF APPELLATE
D. TODD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
December 18, 2019, the Court issued an order dismissing
Plaintiff Phillip Lee Williams, Jr.'s pro se
complaint and granting leave to file an amended complaint
within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 5.) On January 13, 2020, the
Clerk docketed several documents submitted by Williams. (ECF
No. 6.) The Court presumes these documents are intended as
Williams's attempt to amend the complaint.
documents filed by Williams are exhibits that appear to be
related to his state-court criminal proceedings. There are no
additional factual allegations or claims included, and
Williams does not specify any additional Defendants who are
legal standards for assessing the claims in an inmate's
complaint were set forth in the prior order of dismissal,
(ECF No. 5 at PageID 20-21), and will not be reiterated here.
For the reasons explained in that previous order,
(id. at PageID 21-25), Williams still fails to state
a claim against any named Defendant.
the exhibits submitted by Williams relate to his criminal
matter, it appears he wants this Court to become involved in
that proceeding. However, nothing in those exhibits suggests
that Williams's criminal case involves the type of
extraordinary circumstances that would justify this
Court's intervention in an ongoing state-court criminal
matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 2283; see also
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). Furthermore,
even if Williams has been convicted of the charges in state
court, his remedy is a properly filed habeas petition, not an
action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-90 (1973);
see also Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994).
attempt to amend also fails to state a claim on which relief
can be granted; therefore, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1).
Leave to further amend is DENIED.
to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3), the Court must also consider whether an
appeal by Williams in this case would be taken in good faith.
The good faith standard is an objective one. Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The same
considerations that lead the Court to dismiss this case for
failure to state a claim also compel the conclusion that an
appeal would not be taken in good faith. Therefore, it is
CERTIFIED that any appeal in this matter by Williams would
not be taken in good faith.
Court must also address the assessment of the $505 appellate
filing fee if Williams nevertheless appeals the dismissal of
this case. A certification that an appeal is not taken in
good faith does not affect an indigent prisoner
plaintiff's ability to take advantage of the installment
procedures in the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b). See McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997),
partially overruled on other grounds by LaFountain v.
Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013).
McGore sets out specific procedures for implementing
the PLRA. Therefore, Williams is instructed that if he wishes
to take advantage of the installment method for paying the
appellate filing fee, he must comply with the PLRA and
McGore by filing an updated in forma
pauperis affidavit and a current, certified copy of his
inmate trust account statement for the last six months.
analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) of future filings, if
any, by Williams, this is the second dismissal of one of his
cases as frivolous or for failure to state a
claim. This strike shall take effect when
judgment is entered. See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135
S.Ct. 1759, 1763-64 (2015).
Clerk is directed to prepare a judgment.
 Williams also filed Williams v.
Henderson Police Dep't, et al., No.
1:19-cv-1285-JDT-cgc (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 7, 2020) (dismissed for