Suiter v. Prince William County Manassas Regional Adult Detention et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 12/22/11. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
DONALD D. SUITER,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:11CV659
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY MANASSAS
REGIONAL ADULT DETENTION CENTER, et a!.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner, a former Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a 28 U.S.C.
§2254 petition.
By Memorandum Order entered on November 9, 2011, the Court directed
Petitioner to pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit an appropriate informa pauperis affidavit within
fifteen (15) days of the date of entry thereof. Additionally, the Court informed Petitioner that in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus must be filed on a set of standardized forms. See E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 83.4(A).
The Court mailed Petitioner the standardized form for filing a § 2254 petition and directed him to
complete and return the form to the Court within fifteen (15) days of the date of entry thereof.
The Court warned Petitioner that the failure to complete and return the form in a timely manner
will result in dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
More than fifteen (15) days have elapsed since the entry of the November 9, 2011
Memorandum Order and Petitioner has not responded.
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Accordingly, the action will be
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability
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. The Court will deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability.
An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
John A. Gibney,
Date: l^/^/t)
Richmond, Virginia
United States
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?