Albert Arrington v. VDOC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999758335-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-01637-LMB-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999786822]. Mailed to: Albert Arrington. [16-6068]

Appeal: 16-6068

Doc: 11

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6068

ALBERT J. ARRINGTON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:15-cv-01637-LMB-IDD)

Submitted:

March 29, 2016

Decided:

April 1, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert J. Arrington, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6068

Doc: 11

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Albert J. Arrington seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without
prejudice as successive.

The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
See

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
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
Arrington has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

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

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 16-6068

Doc: 11

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3