Williams v. Clarke
Filing
45
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 7/18/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No.
Civil Action No.
v.
3:11CV417
3:13CV245
HAROLD CLARKE,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Vincent Eugene Williams, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro
se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254.
21,
In the § 2254 Petition, Williams challenged the August
2009
decision
of
the
Circuit
Court
for
the
Stafford ("Circuit Court") to revoke his probation.
Clarke, No.
2013) .
2013,
Id.
3:11CV417,
of
Williams v.
at *1 (E.D. Va.
Feb.
6,
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on February 6,
the Court denied the petition and dismissed the action.
at
*5.
Thereafter,
Time
2013 WL 458545,
County
(ECF
Nos.
42 ("Second
Sanctions
Federal
Williams
40
Motion
(ECF
Rule
of
No.
("First
for
two
Motion
Extension
41),
Civil
reasons that follow,
filed
and
a
Procedure
Motions
for
of
for
Extension
Extension
Time")),
Motion
to
60(b)
(ECF
a
Vacate
No.
of
Time"),
Motion
pursuant
43).
of
For
for
to
the
the Court will deny Williams's First Motion
for Extension of Time
(ECF No. 40), grant his Second Motion for
Extension
(ECF No.
of
Time
41),
(ECF No.
42),
deny
his
Motion
and file his Motion to Vacate
as
for
Sanctions
an unauthorized,
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition (ECF No. 43).
I.
Motions
For Extension Of Time
In his First Motion for Extension of Time,
that
he
has
decision
by
"a
fundamental
submitting
his
right
motion
judgment for reconsideration."
seeks
"an
motions
additional
and
twenty
affidavits
to
to
challenge
vacate
(ECF No.
(20)
intended
days
to
in
be
Procedure 59(e)
pursue
(Id.
M
2,
inter
alia,
Rules
In his
30 day
[and]
order
to
(Id.
Court's
aside
the
Williams
prepare
5
all
3.)
In
3.)
Rule
of
Civil
The Federal Rules of
See Fed.
R. Civ.
P.
(precluding courts from extending the time to act under,
59(e)
and
Motion for Extension of Time
"a
set
40 SI 2.)1
Federal
Civil Procedure prohibit such an extension.
6(b)(2)
the
Williams appears to seek
a motion under
or 60(b).
or
filed."
his First Motion for Extension of Time,
additional time to
Williams insists
Second Motion
time extention
motion
1 The
for
Court
COA
has
60(b)).
(ECF No.
Accordingly,
40)
[to]
file his
[{certificate
of
corrected
the
quotations to Williams's submissions.
First
will be denied.
for Extension of Time,
[sic]
the
Williams
seeks
notice of appeal
appealability)]."
capitalization
(ECF
in
the
No.
42,
at 2.)
Williams represents that his incarceration and
the burden of ligating multiple
actions make it difficult for
him to meet the deadline
for
noting an appeal.
Upon good cause
see
Fed.
shown,
R.
App.
P.
Williams's Second Motion for Extension of Time
be granted in part.
(Id.
at
1-2.)
4 (a) (5) (A) (ii) ,
(ECF No.
42)
will
Specifically, Williams will be granted an
extension of fourteen (14)
days from the date of entry hereof to
file a notice of appeal.2
Furthermore,
if Williams wishes to
challenge this Court's denial of a certificate of appealability
("COA"), he should file such a challenge with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.3
II.
Motion For Sanctions
In his Motion for Sanctions,
Williams contends that, counsel
for Respondent has interfered with his ability to access the law
2 "No extension under . . . Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days
after the prescribed time or 14 days after the date when the
order granting the motion is entered, whichever is later."
Fed.
R. App. P. 4 (a) (5) (C) .
3 Local Rule for the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth
district
Fourth
Circuit
court's
Circuit
22(a)(1)(A)
denial
not
the
of
contemplates
a
COA
district
should
court.
that
be
review
directed
4th
Cir.
of
a
to
the
Loc.
R.
22(a)(1)(A) (when "the district court has not granted a [COA]
. . . appellant may submit a request for a [COA] with the Court
of Appeals specifying the issues on which the appellant seeks
authorization to appeal and giving a statement of the reasons
why a certificate should be issued").
library.
(ECF No. 41, at 2.)
Williams fails to demonstrate any
actions by counsel for Respondent that warrant the imposition of
sanctions.
No.
41)
Accordingly,
Williams's
Motion
for
Sanctions
(ECF
will be denied.
III.
On
March
12,
2013,
(ECF No. 43-3, at l.)4
under Federal
Court's
Rule
resolution
explained
below,
Motion To Vacate
Williams
the
the
Procedure
merits
Motion
to
Antiterrorism
restricted
the
second
successive
or
and
of
his
Motion
to
Vacate.
of
§
and challenges this
2254
must
Petition.
be
treated
As
as
a
§ 2254 petition.
Effective
jurisdiction
60(b)
Vacate
successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C.
The
his
In that motion, Williams requests relief
of Civil
of
filed
Death
the
applications
Penalty Act
district
for
courts
federal
of
1996
to
hear
habeas
corpus
relief by prisoners attacking the validity of their convictions
and sentences by establishing a "gatekeeping mechanism."
v.
Turpin,
omitted).
518
U.S.
651,
Specifically,
657
(1996)
"[b]efore
application permitted by this
(internal
a
section is
Felker
quotation
second
or
filed in
marks
successive
the district
4 This is the date on the cover letter that accompanied
Williams's Motion to Vacate and apparently the date he handed
his Motion to Vacate to prison officials for mailing to this
Court.
Accordingly, that is the date the Court deems the Motion
to Vacate filed.
See Houston v.
Lack,
487 U.S.
266,
276
(1988).
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 United States
instructed
that
collateral
attacks
inmates
inventive
200,
(4th
treat
Rule
not
the
avoid
States
motions
as
on
and
v.
Accordingly,
Fourth Circuit
bar
convictions
United
2003).
60(b)
for the
their
See
Cir.
of Appeals
may
on
labeling.
206
Court
successive
sentences
Winestock,
340
F.3d
courts
"district
successive
by
must
collateral
review
applications when failing to do so would allow the applicant to
^evade
prior
the
bar
against
application
presented
in
a
Thompson,
523 U.S.
or
relitigation
the
prior
bar
of
against
553
Id.
merits
in
a
claims
not
Calderon
v.
(1998)).
as here,
a Rule
motion "seeks to revisit the federal court's denial on the
of a claim for relief[,
treated as
545 U.S.
Motion
the
Court
file
the Rule
60(b)
a successive habeas petition."
524,
the
to
of
(quoting
The Supreme Court has instructed that when,
60(b)
presented
litigation
application.'"
538,
claims
534
to
has
the
(2005).
Vacate
not
as
a
The Clerk will
successive
§
successive
for want of jurisdiction.
petition,
the
Gonzalez
should be
v.
Crosby,
be directed to
2254
received authorization
motion]
Petition.
from the
action
file
Because
Fourth Circuit
will
be
dismissed
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."
satisfies
this
requirement
debate
whether
should
have
issues
presented
(or,
been
were
(quoting Barefoot
fails
for
only when
that
resolved
proceed further.'"
Williams
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
"reasonable jurists could
matter,
in
a
agree
to
to
Estelle,
meet
this
the
or
deserve
Slack v. McDaniel,
v.
that)
manner
different
^adequate
A petitioner
880,
standard.
that
encouragement
529 U.S.
463 U.S.
petition
473,
893
A
484
n.4
the
to
(2000)
(1983)).
certificate
of
appealability will therefore be denied.
The
Clerk
is
directed
to
send
a
copy
of
the
Memorandum
Opinion to Williams and counsel of record.
/s/
Robert E.
flU
Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Date
: 9^$*^
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?