Johnson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 3/23/12. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
ANTONIO D. JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:11CV353-HEH
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Dismissing Successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition)
Petitioner, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 1994 convictions in the Circuit Court for the
City of Newport News. Petitioner previously has filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia challenging the above convictions. The Court dismissed the petition.
See Johnson v. Jabe, No. 04cv938 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2005). The Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 restricted the jurisdiction of the district courts to
hear second or successive applications for federal habeas corpus relief by prisoners
attacking the validity of their convictions and sentences by establishing a "gatekeeping
mechanism." Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Specifically, "[b]efore a second or successive application permitted by this
section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of
appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(A). The Court had not received any such authorization in the present case.
Therefore, by Memorandum Order entered on June 14, 2011, the Court directed Petitioner
to show cause why the present action should not be dismissed.
Petitioner has responded. Petitioner, however, fails to explain why the Court can
entertain his present § 2254 Petition without prior authorization from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Accordingly,
the action will be DISMISSED for lack ofjurisdiction.
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a
judge issues a certificate of appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA
will not issue unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when
"reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further."' Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473,484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). No law or
evidence suggests that Petitioner is entitled to further consideration in this matter. A
certificate of appealability will be DENIED.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
*M
s/
HENRY E. HUDSON
Date: Wfl^lZS^IV
Richmond, Virginia
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?