Louis Fuller v. Leroy Cartlidge
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:09-cv-01352-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999368051]. Mailed to: Louis Fuller. [14-6443]
Appeal: 14-6443
Doc: 5
Filed: 06/03/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6443
LOUIS ENGLISH FULLER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLIDGE, Warden MCCI,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
HENRY MCMASTER, AG,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(0:09-cv-01352-RBH)
Submitted:
May 29, 2014
Decided:
June 3, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis English Fuller, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-6443
Doc: 5
Filed: 06/03/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Louis
court’s
order
English
Fuller
construing
in
seeks
part
to
his
appeal
Fed.
R.
the
Civ.
district
P.
60(b)
motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, and
dismissing it on that basis, and denying relief in part.
The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a
certificate
of
appealability.
28
U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A)
(2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
certificate
of
appealability
will
not
issue
absent
A
“a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief
on
the
demonstrating
district
merits,
that
court’s
debatable
or
a
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
When the district court denies
Slack
satisfies
jurists
this
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
standard
find
constitutional
529
U.S.
by
that
the
claims
is
473,
484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Fuller has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2
Appeal: 14-6443
Doc: 5
Filed: 06/03/2014
Additionally,
and
informal
brief
we
as
Pg: 3 of 3
construe
an
Fuller’s
application
successive § 2254 petition.
to
notice
file
a
of
appeal
second
or
United States v. Winestock, 340
F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).
In order to obtain 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
have found the petitioner guilty of the offense.
§ 2244(b)(2) (2012).
these
criteria.
would
28 U.S.C.
Fuller’s claims do not satisfy either of
Therefore,
we
deny
authorization
to
file
a
successive § 2254 petition.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3
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?