David Gregory Landeck v. David Zook


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [1000062116-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999967599-2] in 16-7432, denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999967587-2] in 16-7514 Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00106-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000079005]. Mailed to: Christopher Todd Landeck COFFEEWOOD CORRECTIONAL CENTER 12352 Coffeewood Drive P. O. Box 500 Mitchells, VA 22729-0000 David Gregory Landeck KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER State Route 629 P. O. Box 860 Oakwood, VA 24631-0860. [16-7432, 16-7514]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7432 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/10/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7432 DAVID GREGORY LANDECK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID ZOOK, Warden, Bland Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. No. 16-7514 CHRISTOPHER TODD LANDECK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. I. T. GILMORE, Warden – Coffewood Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick C. Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:15-cv-00106-RCY; 3:15-cv00105-RCY) Submitted: April 28, 2017 Decided: May 10, 2017 Appeal: 16-7432 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/10/2017 Pg: 2 of 4 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Gregory Landeck; Christopher Todd Landeck, Appellants Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-7432 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/10/2017 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: David Gregory Landeck and Christopher Todd Landeck seek to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders denying relief on their 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petitions. * The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 (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 the Landecks have not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeals. We further deny the motion for a second brief following the certificate of appealability ruling. We dispense with oral * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a federal magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012). 3 Appeal: 16-7432 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/10/2017 Pg: 4 of 4 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 4

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?