Williams v. State of Missouri

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
BRAYON WILLIAMS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) No. 2:25-cv-00087-AGF
)
STATE OF MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner Brayon Williams filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
challenging a 2022 state court conviction and sentence.1 ECF No. 1. However, Petitioner did not pay
the filing fee, file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, or properly sign his Petition. Under Rule
11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must
be signed ... by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Further, Local Rule 2.11 recognizes
a “person’s name on a signature block” as a signature when the person made an “authorized filing”
through his or her electronic filing account. The Local Rule goes on to explain that even if a document
is electronically filed, if it has been signed by someone “other than an attorney of record,” then “the
document must be physically signed.” E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.11.
Here, Petitioner Williams did not make an authorized filing through an electronic filing
account, and he typed a set of numbers and letters in the signature block of his Petition. See ECF No.
1 at 13. He therefore failed to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
this Court’s Local Rules. See Dean v. Stobie, No. 4:24-cv-00184-SRC, ECF No. 5 (E.D. Mo. March
1, 2024); Dean v. Stobie, No. 4:24-cv-00074-MTS, ECF No. 22 (E.D. Mo. Jun. 5, 2024). Furthermore,
1 On the same day, Petitioner Williams also filed a Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging the same state court
conviction and sentence. See ECF No. 2. Because Petitioner is challenging a conviction from state court and not
federal court, this case is construed as being brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Case: 2:25-cv-00087-AGF Doc. #: 5 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

-2-
Petitioner Williams should be aware of this necessity as he has been warned multiple times about this
failure to sign filings in the past. See Williams v. United States, No. 2:24-cv-74-MTS, ECF Nos. 10
& 17 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 10, 2024).
Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Williams must either pay the filing fee or
file a complete and properly signed motion to proceed in forma pauperis on the Court-provided
form. Additionally, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Williams must properly sign
the Petition and return it to the Court. To assist Williams, the Court will direct the Clerk to return the
Petition to him. If Williams fails to timely comply with this Order, the Court will dismiss this case
without prejudice and without further notice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall return the Petition [ECF No. 1] to Petitioner
Brayon Williams for proper signature.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall send Petitioner Brayon Williams a copy
of the Court’s ‘Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Affidavit in Support – Habeas Cases’ form.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner Brayon Williams shall properly sign the Petition and return it to the Court and shall either
pay the filing fee or file a complete and properly signed Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
Petitioner Brayon Williams’s failure to timely comply with this Order will result in the
dismissal of this case without prejudice and without further notice.
Dated this 5th day of December, 2025.
____________________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:25-cv-00087-AGF Doc. #: 5 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>