Warren Chase v. Commissioner of Maryland
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
WARREN CHASE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:09-cv-03009-CCB)
April 29, 2010
May 21, 2010
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Warren Chase filed a hybrid complaint in the district court seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) and seeking an order transferring him to a different institution. That part
of the order dismissing his § 2254 petition as successive and without authorization from this court is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or
constitutional prisoner reasonable
right." this would by
§ 2253(c)(2) by any
demonstrating assessment is of
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude Chase has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss in part the appeal. Additionally, we construe Chase's notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 2 United States v. Winestock,
authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of
constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due
diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no
reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. not satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2006). either of these criteria. Chase's claims do Therefore, we deny
authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. Insofar as Chase sought an order compelling the
Respondents to transfer him to another institution, we note "an inmate has no justifiable expectation that he will be Olim
incarcerated in any particular prison within a State[."] v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983).
We further note Chase
failed to state a claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. See Pennsylvania Dep't of Corrections v. Yeskey, Accordingly, Chase's claim in this
524 U.S. 206, 212-13 (1998).
regard was without merit and we affirm in part the district court's order. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss in part and affirm in part the district court's order. 3 We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?