UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JOHN EDWARDS WILLIAMS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

STATE OF OREGON, 

et al., 

Respondent. 

AIKEN, District Judge. 

2:14-cv-01708-AA 

ORDER 

Petitioner is in the custody of the Oregon Department of 

Corrections pursuant to a judgment dated January 25, 2012 from 

the Grant County Circuit Court after convictions for multiple 

sex crimes. After petitioner pleaded no contest to the 

charges, the court imposed three 75-month sentences of 

imprisonment, all to run consecutively. 

Petitioner did not directly appeal his convictions or 

file a petition for post-conviction relief. 

On October 27, 2014, petitioner filed a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus alleging various claims for relief. Petition 

1 - ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-01708-AA Document 27 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 5
( #1) . 

Respondent now moves to deny relief and dismiss this 

proceeding on the grounds that petitioner procedurally 

defaulted his claims and because the petition is time barred. 

Response (#22). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) (1), an application for a writ 

of habeas corpus "shall not be granted" unless "the applicant 

has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the 

State[.]" Exhaustion occurs when a petitioner has given the 

state courts a "full and fair" opportunity to consider and 

resolve all federal claims. Keeney v. Tomayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 

1, 10 (1992). If a petitioner can present a claim to the 

state's Supreme Court, he must do so to properly exhaust that 

claim. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844-45 (1999). 

If a petitioner has failed to present a federal 

constitutional claim to the state's highest court (i.e., has 

failed to exhaust state remedies) and can no longer do so 

because of a procedural bar, that claim is procedurally 

defaulted. Boerckel, 526 U.S. at 848, citing Coleman v. 

Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731-32 (1991). Once a petitioner has 

procedurally defaulted a claim, federal habeas corpus review 

is barred unless the petitioner can demonstrate: (1) cause for 

the procedural default, and ( 2) actual prejudice from the 

failure. Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 451 (2000), 

2 - ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-01708-AA Document 27 Filed 12/03/15 Page 2 of 5
Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750; see also Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 

U.S. 72 (1977); Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 748 (1986); Hughes 

v. Idaho Bd. of Corr., 800 F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Cause for a procedural default exists only if a 

petitioner can "show that some objective factor external to 

the defense impeded counsel's efforts to comply with the 

State's procedural rule." Murray, 477 U.S. at 488. Prejudice 

exists only if a petitioner shows that the procedural default 

"worked to [petitioner's] actual and substantial 

disadvantage." United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 170 

(1982). Demonstrating a mere possibility of prejudice is 

insufficient. Id. 

Procedural defaults may also be excused by demonstrating 

a "fundamental miscarriage of justice." Edwards v. Carpenter, 

529 U.S. 446, 451 (2000). To establish the fundamental 

miscarriage of justice exception to the exhaustion requirement 

requires a showing of actual innocence. Schlup v. Delo, 513 

U.S. 298, 329 (1995); Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 

(1998). 

In this case, petitioner did not appeal his convictions 

or file for post-conviction relief. Because petitioner did not 

fairly present the claims alleged his Petition (#1) to 

Oregon's highest court, and the time for presenting new 

3 - ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-01708-AA Document 27 Filed 12/03/15 Page 3 of 5
claims is past, 1 the claims are procedurally defaulted. 

Petitioner has not established any cause and prejudice for his 

procedural default or that he is entitled to the fundamental 

miscarriage of justice exception to the exhaustion 

requirement. Accordingly, the claims in this proceeding are 

not properly before the court and are denied. 

Even if petitioner could establish exhaustion or 

entitlement to an exception to the exhaustion requirement, he 

did not file his petition within the one-year statute of 

limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Accordingly, 

petitioner's claimed are time barred. 

Based on the foregoing, petitioner's Pe ti ti on ( #1) is 

denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a 

judgment dismissing this proceeding. 

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the 

Ill// 

Ill// 

1 

ORS 138 requires that direct appeals be filed not later 

than 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from was 

entered in the register. ORS 138. 650 requires that PCR 

appeals be filed within 30 days after the entry of final 

judgment. ORS 2. 52 0 requires petitions for review to the 

Oregon Supreme Court be filed within 35 days from the date of 

the Court of Appeals' decision. See also, ORAP 9.05(2) (same) 

Finally, ORS 138.550(3) provides that all PCR claims must be 

asserted in the original or amended petition unless they 

could not reasonably have been asserted therein, and any 

claims not so asserted are deemed waived. 

4 - ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-01708-AA Document 27 Filed 12/03/15 Page 4 of 5
denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, a certificate of 

appealability is denied. Seer 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) (2). 

DATED this 

Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

5 - ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-01708-AA Document 27 Filed 12/03/15 Page 5 of 5