Broyhill v. State of North Carolina
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 12/1/2017. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(chh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon initial review of Petitioner Timothy Broyhill’s
pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.)
On January 4, 2017, Petitioner filed a document in the Eastern District of North Carolina,
which that court construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No.
1.) The court sent Petitioner a deficiency notice informing him that his habeas petition was not
on the required form for that district and a blank copy of the appropriate form to fill in and
return. (Doc. No. 3.). Petitioner failed to complete and return the form. On July 7, 2017, the
Eastern District transferred the entire action to this Court, where venue is proper. (Doc. No. 7.)
Rule 2(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
requires that habeas petitions follow a specific format. As noted by the Eastern District,
Petitioner’s pleading does not comply with that requirement. This Court provided Petitioner an
additional opportunity to comply with Rule 2(d). (Doc. No. 9.) On July 10, 2017, the Clerk of
Court sent Petitioner the standard 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form to complete, sign, and return.
The Court provided Petitioner 21 days to complete and return the standard form and
warned Petitioner that failure to comply with the Court’s Order would result in dismissal of this
action without further notice. (Doc. No. 9.) Petitioner has not completed and returned the
standard § 2254 form.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability as Petitioner has not
made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003) (in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474, 484 (2000) (holding that when
relief is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must establish both that the correctness of the
dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatably valid claim of
the denial of a constitutional right).
Signed: December 1, 2017
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?