Desi Lewis v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999399767-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00549-RAJ-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999443745]. Mailed to: Lewis. [14-6964]

Appeal: 14-6964

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/26/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6964

DESI ARNEZ LEWIS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:13-cv-00549-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted:

September 23, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Decided:

Circuit

September 26, 2014

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Desi Arnez Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6964

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/26/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Desi Arnez Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing

his

unauthorized,
untimely. *
or

judge

28

U.S.C.

successive

2254

petition

(2012)

or,

in

petition

the

as

alternative,

an
as

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

§

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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.

*

Because the petition was successive and unauthorized, the
district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b) (2012); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205
(4th Cir. 2003).

2

Appeal: 14-6964

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/26/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Lewis has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

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.

DISMISSED

3