Shearrin v. Newport News, Virginia
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 1/26/12. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
WILLIAM E. SHEARRIN,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:1 Icv742-HEH
v.
NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Denying Successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition)
Petitioner, William E. Shearrin, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted
this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition")
challenging his convictions for felony rape in the Circuit Court for the City of Newport
News, Virginia. On November 8, 2011, by Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court
denied Shearrin's prior § 2254 petition challenging the same convictions. Shearrin v.
Hampton Roads Reg'lJail, No. 3:11CV138-HEH, 2011 WL 5403243, at *3 (E.D. Va.
Nov. 8,2011).
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). 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). Because Shearrin has not obtained authorization from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to file a successive § 2254 petition challenging
his probation revocation, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present § 2254
petition. Accordingly, the § 2254 Petition will be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction.
Shearrin's motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis will be denied as moot and the
action 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." 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 Shearrin is entitled to further consideration in this matter. A
certificate of appealability will be denied.
An appropriate Order shall issue.
**
/,/
HENRY E. HUDSON
Date: Jc^ Z4 aon,
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?