Michael Formica v. Central Virginia Regional Jail

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999699849-2]; denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999779706-2] Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00357-MFU-JCH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999783634].. [15-7728]

Appeal: 15-7728

Doc: 20

Filed: 03/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7728

MICHAEL FORMICA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CENTRAL VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL; WARDEN
OF THE POCAHONTAS STATE CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
Judge. (7:14-cv-00357-MFU-JCH)

Submitted:

March 15, 2016

Decided:

March 29, 2016

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Michael Formica, Appellant Pro Se.
John Chadwick Johnson,
Christopher Carey Newton, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke,
Virginia; Lauren Catherine Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7728

Doc: 20

Filed: 03/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Michael

Formica

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

September 21, 2015 order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate
§ 2254

judge

(2012)

and

denying

petition;

the

relief

on

court’s

Formica’s

October

16,

28

U.S.C.

2015

order

denying Formica’s first Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion; and the
court’s October 27, 2015 order denying two subsequent Rule 59(e)
motions and dismissing as successive and unauthorized two Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions. *
The September 21 and October 16 orders and the portion of
the October 27 order denying Formica’s second and third Rule
59(e) motions are not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

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

It is the “longstanding practice of courts to classify pro
se pleadings from prisoners according to their contents, without
regard to their captions.” United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 203 (4th Cir. 2003).
The two Rule 60(b) motions are the
ones Formica delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court after the October 19 deadline for filing Rule 59(e)
motions.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266, 276 (1988); In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 2-3 (4th Cir. 1992).

2

Appeal: 15-7728

Doc: 20

Filed: 03/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

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

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss Formica’s appeal
of the September 21 and October 16 orders and the portion of the
October 27 order denying Formica’s second and third Rule 59(e)
motions.
A certificate of appealability, however, is not required in
the limited circumstance in which the district court dismisses a
Rule

60(b)

petition.
2015).

motion

as

an

unauthorized,

successive

habeas

United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir.

Accordingly, we may review the portion of the district

court’s October 27 order dismissing Formica’s Rule 60(b) motions
as successive and unauthorized.
“[A] Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas proceeding that attacks
the substance of the federal court’s resolution of a claim on
the

merits

is

not

a

true

Rule
3

60(b)

motion,

but

rather

a

Appeal: 15-7728

Doc: 20

Filed: 03/29/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

successive habeas petition,” and is therefore subject to the
preauthorization requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2012)
for successive applications.
quotation marks omitted).
that

challenges

some

McRae, 793 F.3d at 397 (internal

By contrast, “[a] Rule 60(b) motion

defect

in

the

integrity

of

the

federal

habeas proceedings . . . is a true Rule 60(b) motion, and is not
subject

to

the

preauthorization

quotation marks omitted).

requirement.”

Id.

(internal

Where, however, a motion “presents

claims subject to the requirements for successive applications
as well as claims cognizable under Rule 60(b),” it is properly
characterized as a mixed Rule 60(b)/§ 2254 petition.

Id. at 400

(internal quotation marks omitted).
In

his

Rule

60(b)

motions,

attacked

his

convictions

and

remedies

for

perceived

flaws

Formica

sentence
in

the

not

but

only

he

§ 2254

directly

also

sought

proceeding.

Specifically, he argued that his claims were not procedurally
defaulted and that the court erred in denying him an extension
of time to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, failing to consider the merits of his claims,
failing to hold an evidentiary hearing, and failing to appoint
counsel.

Accordingly, we conclude that Formica’s motions are

properly construed as mixed Rule 60(b)/§ 2254 petitions.
In McRae, we reaffirmed our prior holding that, when the
applicant

files

a

mixed

Rule
4

60(b)/§ 2254

petition,

“‘the

Appeal: 15-7728

Doc: 20

Filed: 03/29/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

district court should afford the applicant an opportunity to
elect between deleting the improper claims or having the entire
motion treated as a successive application.’”
(quoting Winestock, 340 F.3d at 207).

793 F.3d at 400

Here, the district court

did not afford Formica that opportunity.

We therefore grant

Formica leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny his motion to
place

this

district

appeal

court’s

in

abeyance,

October

27

order

vacate

the

portion

dismissing

his

of

Rule

the
60(b)

motions, and remand for further proceedings.
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 IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

5