Jarrett D. Holden v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999297058-2], granting certificate of appealability Originating case number: 1:13-cv-01591-TSE-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999353221]. Mailed to: Holden. [14-6104]

Appeal: 14-6104

Doc: 8

Filed: 05/09/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6104

JARRETT D. HOLDEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VA. D.O.C.,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-01591-TSE-TRJ)

Submitted:

April 23, 2014

Decided:

May 9, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jarrett D. Holden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6104

Doc: 8

Filed: 05/09/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jarrett D. Holden seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as successive his petition filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012), in which he claimed that his sentence of
mandatory life without parole is unconstitutional following the
Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455,
2460, 2469 (2012).
We granted Holden’s motion for authorization to pursue
this claim in the district court on June 16, 2013.

In re:

Holden, No. 13-264 (4th Cir. June 19, 2013) (unpublished order).
Holden subsequently filed a successive § 2254 petition in the
district

court,

which

the

district

prejudice for failure to exhaust.

court

dismissed

without

The district court’s order

clearly stated that “Petitioner may resubmit his claims to [the
district court] after he has exhausted them in the Supreme Court
of Virginia.”

Holden v. Clarke, No. 1:13-cv-00897-TSE-TRJ (E.D.

Va. Sept. 20, 2013).
The

Supreme

Court

of

Virginia

dismissed

Holden’s

petition for a writ of habeas corpus on November 7, 2013, and
Holden

refiled

his

December

27,

2013.

petition

as

an

§ 2254
The

claim

in

district

unauthorized,

the
court

district
dismissed

successive

court

on

Holden’s

petition,

and

erroneously informed Holden that he needed to seek authorization
from this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2012).
2

Appeal: 14-6104

Doc: 8

Filed: 05/09/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

Because we have already granted Holden the requisite
authorization under § 2244, we find that the district court’s
procedural ruling was in error.

We therefore grant leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, grant a certificate of appealability,
vacate the district court’s order, and remand with instructions
for the district court to consider Holden’s petition.

In so

doing, we express no opinion as to the procedural or substantive
merits

of

Holden’s

claims.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

3