McGraw-Williams v. United States of America

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Antonio Trevyll McGraw-Williams,
Petitioner,
v.
United States of America,
Respondent.
Case No. 26-cv-2419 (ECT/DLM)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Antonio Trevyll McGraw-Williams was recently convicted in this
District on one count of possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. See United States v.
McGraw-Williams, No. 23-CR-0066 (JNE/LIB) (D. Minn.). Mr. McGraw-Williams, who
is currently awaiting sentencing, now hopes to challenge the validity of that conviction
through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. That habeas petition is now before the Court
on review pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts.1
“[A] petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedural vehicle
through which to attack the legality of ongoing federal criminal proceedings.”
Broussard v. United States, No. 22-CV-2004 (PJS/DTS), 2022 WL 3370945, at *1 (D.
Minn. Aug. 16, 2022). The reason for this is simple: “It is unnecessary and inappropriate
to shop around for a second judge to, in essence, act as an appellate tribunal to review a
1 Mr. McGraw-Williams’s habeas petition is not brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases may nevertheless be applied to the petition. See Rule 1(b).
CASE 0:26-cv-02419-ECT-DLM Doc. 4 Filed 05/05/26 Page 1 of 4

2
possible error by the trial judge.” Medina v. Choate, 875 F.3d 1025, 1029 (10th Cir. 2017).
Mr. McGraw-Williams may raise any argument that he wishes during the course of the
criminal proceedings. To the extent that those arguments are rejected, he may argue on
direct appeal that the judge presiding over the criminal case has gotten things wrong. If he
is not vindicated on direct appeal, relief from the conviction or sentence may be available
to Mr. McGraw-Williams through a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the criminal
case. What Mr. McGraw-Williams may not do, however, is attempt to evade that process
by seeking habeas corpus relief while the criminal proceedings remain ongoing. This is
simply not the correct procedural vehicle through which to raise such claims.
Accordingly, Mr. McGraw-Williams’s habeas petition should be denied without
prejudice. Because his habeas petition should be denied, Mr. McGraw-Williams’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis should also be denied. See Kruger v. Erickson,
No. 77 F.3d 1071, 1074 n.3 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
Finally, Mr. McGraw-Williams has now repeatedly in recent weeks sought to
challenge his conviction through ancillary proceedings. See McGraw-Williams v. Brisbois,
No. 26-CV-2018 (JNE/DLM) (D. Minn.); McGraw-Williams v. Brisbois, No. 26-CV-2223
(JNE/DJF) (D. Minn.); McGraw-Williams v. Brisbois, No. 26-CV-2420 (LMP/EMB) (D.
Minn.). All of Mr. McGraw-Williams’s prior efforts to subvert his criminal case have
already been summarily dismissed, and this matter is recommended for summary dismissal
as well. There is no good-faith basis upon which Mr. McGraw-Williams may continue to
seek launch ancillary attacks on the criminal proceedings through lawsuits and habeas
petitions. In the meantime, the Court may take appropriate steps to protect itself from
CASE 0:26-cv-02419-ECT-DLM Doc. 4 Filed 05/05/26 Page 2 of 4

3
malicious, duplicative, and otherwise bad-faith litigation. See In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290,
1292-94 (8th Cir. 1988). It is therefore recommended that Mr. McGraw-Williams be
restricted from initiating new litigation in this District that seeks to commence a new
proceeding challenging the legality of his criminal prosecution, conviction, or eventual
sentence, unless he is represented by counsel or receives advance permission of a judicial
officer of this District. Such a restriction would not prevent Mr. McGraw-Williams from
filing any document in his ongoing criminal proceedings, from filing direct appeal in the
criminal matter after judgment is entered, from (at the appropriate time) filing a motion for
relief under § 2255 in the criminal case, or from commencing litigation unrelated to the
validity of Mr. McGraw-Williams’s conviction, such as litigation related to the conditions
of his confinement. What the restriction would do, however, is prevent Mr. McGraw-
Williams from continuing to launch hopeless ancillary attacks on the criminal prosecution.
Mr. McGraw-Williams’s recent history of vexatiousness has established that such a
restriction is now necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus of petitioner Antonio Trevyll
McGraw-Williams (Doc. 1) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. Mr. McGraw-Williams’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2)
be DENIED.
CASE 0:26-cv-02419-ECT-DLM Doc. 4 Filed 05/05/26 Page 3 of 4

4
3. Mr. McGraw-Williams be restricted from initiating new litigation in this
District that seeks to commence a new proceeding challenging the legality of
his criminal prosecution, conviction, or eventual sentence, unless he is
represented by counsel or receives advance permission of a judicial officer
of this District.
Dated: May 5, 2026 _s/Douglas L. Micko____________
DOUGLAS L. MICKO
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those
objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See Local
Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set
forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-02419-ECT-DLM Doc. 4 Filed 05/05/26 Page 4 of 4