Douglas Wade Williamson

Federal Correctional Complex

3000 Old Hwy. 

Butner, NC 27509

Plaintiff in pro per




douglas wade williamson,Plaintiff,vs.federal correctional institution; and federal bureau of prisons,Defendants. Case No.: 1:17-CR-00987PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

NOW COMES Douglas Wade Williamson, Plaintiff, and files this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:

Plaintiff is an inmate at Butner Prison Federal Camp. He was incarcerated when he presented himself to the Butner Federal Correctional Institution in 2019. On (Date), Plaintiff qualified for home confinement. However, he still continues to be incarcerated by Defendants. Plaintiff is not a flight-risk or a danger to the community. His prolonged detention is no longer justified under the Constitution of the United States. Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court declaring his continued and prolonged detention unlawful and ordering Defendants to release Mr. Douglas Wade Williamson from their custody.


  1. Mr. Douglas Wade Williamson is in the physical custody of Defendants Federal Correctional Institution and Federal Bureau of Prisons. At the time of the filing of this Petition, Plaintiff is detained at the Butner Federal Correctional Institution.


  1. This action arises under 28 U.S. Code § 1331 since Petitioner is presently in custody under color of authority of the United States and such custody is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.


  1. Venue lies in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina under 28 U.S. Code § 1391(e), the district in which Defendants reside and where Plaintiff is detained.


  1. Plaintiff Douglas Wade Williamson is a male adult of sound mind detained at Butner Federal Correctional Institution.
  2. Federal Correctional Institution located at Butner, South Carolina, is a federal prison in which Plaintiff is detained.
  3. Federal Bureau of Prisons is responsible for the operation of Federal Correctional Institution.


  1. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies to the extent required by law. He has fully cooperated with Defendants and has not delayed or obstructed his detention.
  2. Plaintiff’s only remedy is by way of this judicial action.


  1. Plaintiff was sentenced to 60 months in prison on 12/07/2018. Plaintiff had agreed to a plea deal after being convinced by his former attorney, James Ervin. Ervin had represented to Plaintiff that he would be sentenced to only 0-6 months in prison or probation if he accepted a plea deal that had been offered by James H. May, the prosecutor.
  2. The only thing that Plaintiff admitted to in the sentence was an error in judgement while dealing with one insurance applicant. Plaintiff believes that it does not constitute a crime as the insurance company continued to collect premiums and keep the policy in force.
  3. Before his incarceration, Plaintiff was an insurance agent. During his case, the amount calculated by the prosecution was not correct. The calculations were based on the face values of the policies arriving at an amount between $3,000,000.00 and $9,500,000.00.
  4. Plaintiff’s attorney did not discuss anything with him in regard to any loss. 
  5. The estimated loss between $3,000,000.00 and $9,500,000.00 was fabricated by the prosecution to get a conviction against Plaintiff. The prosecution did not prove the loss beyond reasonable doubt. Had there been any loss, the insurance company would have reported it.
  6. Prosecutor James H. May made a request to the court to speak to the insurance companies to determine the loss they had made as a result of Plaintiff’s actions. James H. May has never reported any loss made.
  7. Plaintiff’s attorney received assurance that Plaintiff would only be imprisoned for 0-5 months or serve time while on probation. Plaintiff relied on the representation made by his attorney to sign the deal whose terms were later changed. 
  8. Plaintiff would like an opportunity to appear physically and prove his innocence before a court of law. 


  1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the facts in Paragraphs 9-16 as though set out in full herein.
  2. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution expressly states the following: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
  3. To prove ineffective assistance, a defendant must show (1) that their trial lawyer’s performance fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington¸466 U.S. 668 (2014).
  4. Plaintiff’s trial attorney, James Ervin, provided ineffective assistance of counsel to Plaintiff. He had a duty to ensure that the information he gave Plaintiff was reliable and that the terms of the plea agreement that Plaintiff was supposed to sign were favorable to Plaintiff. 
  5. Plaintiff relied on the representations made by James Ervin to sign the deal that had been offered by the prosecution believing that he would go to prison for 0-6 months or be put on probation. Had Plaintiff known that there was a possibility of going to prison for 60 months, he would not have accepted the deal issued by the prosecution. He would have pled not guilty and let the case proceed to trial where the prosecution would have had the opportunity to prove its case against Plaintiff beyond reasonable doubt.


  1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the facts and allegations in Paragraphs 9-21 of this Petition as though set out in full herein.
  2. Plaintiff has qualified for home confinement. However, he continues to be detained by Defendants under deplorable prison conditions. His continued detainment continues to be unlawful as he has qualified for home confinement. It would only be reasonable to allow Plaintiff to be confined at home as he has qualified for home confinement.
  3. As at the date of filing of this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Plaintiff remains detained by Defendants. This Court should issue the writ of habeas corpus forthwith and order Mr. Douglas Wade Williamson to be released to home confinement.


REASONS WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant him the following relief:

  1. Grant a Writ of Habeas Corpus ordering the release of Plaintiff by Defendants to home confinement; and
  2. Schedule an evidentiary hearing in which Plaintiff should be physically present to prove his innocence

Dated this ___ day of December, 2021.

Respectfully Submitted,


Douglas Wade Williamson,

Plaintiff in pro per


I, Douglas Wade Williamson, the Plaintiff in this matter, hereby verify that the statements set forth in the foregoing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 

Dated this ___ day of December, 2021.

Respectfully Submitted,


Douglas Wade Williamson,

Plaintiff in pro per

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )