Williams v. Clarke

Filing 34

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.

3:12CV305

Civil Action No.

v.

3:13CV247

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.

In the

execution of his
the

Circuit

§

2254

Petition,

Williams

challenged "the

fifteen-year sentence for robbery imposed by

Court

for

County

of

Stafford."

2013).

By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on February 6,

Id.

at

Court

the

petition

and dismissed the

Feb.

6,

action.

*4.

Thereafter,

Time

denied

at *1 (E.D. Va.

v.

No.

the

2013 WL 458551,

Williams

Clarke,

2013,

3:12CV305,

the

(ECF

Nos.

Williams

29

filed

("First

two

Motion

Motions

for

for

Extension

Extension

of

of Time"),

30 ("Second Motion for Extension of Time")), a Motion to Vacate

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
and

Motion

Vacate

to

(ECF No

Substitute
32).

Corrected

Williams's

Pages for the Motion to Vacate

Pages

Motion

to

(ECF No.

for

(ECF No. 31),
the

Substitute

32)

Motion

to

Corrected

will be granted.

For

the

First

reasons

Motion

that

for

follow,

Extension

the

of

Court

Time

Second Motion for Extension of Time
Motion to
U.S.C.

Vacate

(ECF No.

31)

as

will

(ECF

deny

Williams's

No.

29),

grant

(ECF No.

30),

a successive,

and file his

unauthorized 28

§ 2254 petition.

I.

Motions

For Extension Of Time

In his First Motion for Extension of Time,

that

his

he

has

decision

"a

by

fundamental

submitting

a

right

motion

to

judgment for reconsideration."
seeks an additional
filings

twenty

submitted."

Extension of Time,

5

challenge

vacate

(ECF No.

(20)

(Id.

to

Williams insists

or

set

29 f

2. J1

days "to be able
3.)

In

Williams appears

the

his

aside

the

Williams

[to]

First

Court's

get all

Motion

for

to seek additional time to

pursue a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or

60(b).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

extension.

See Fed.

extending

the

60(b)).

Accordingly,

(ECF No.

29)

1 The

time

R.
to

Civ.

P.

6(b)(2)

act

under,

the

First

inter
Motion

prohibit such an

(precluding courts from
alia,

Rules

59(e)

Extension

of

Time

capitalization

in

the

for

and

will be denied.

Court

has

corrected

the

quotations from Williams's submissions.

In his Second Motion

for Extension of Time,

Williams

seeks

"a 30 day time extention [sic] to file his notice of appeal,

and

motion for COA [(certificate of appealability)]."

30,

at

2.)

Williams

represents

that

his

(ECF No.

incarceration

and

the

burden of litigating multiple actions makes it difficult for him

to meet the deadline for noting an appeal.
good cause shown,

see Fed.

R. App.

(Id.

at 1-2.)

Upon

P. 4 (a) (5) (A) (ii) , Williams's

Second Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 30) will be granted
in part.

Specifically, Williams will be granted an extension of

fourteen

(14)

days

notice of appeal.2

from

the

date

Furthermore,

of

entry

hereof

to

file

a

to extent Williams wishes to

challenge this Court's denial of a certificate of appealability
("COA"),

such a challenge must be directed to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.3

2 "No extension under . . . Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days
after

the

prescribed

time

or

14

days

order granting the motion is entered,
R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(C).

after

the

date

when

whichever is later."

the
Fed.

3 Local Rule for the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth

Circuit

22(a)(1)(A)

district court's denial
Fourth Circuit not the

22(a)(1)(A)

contemplates

of a COA should
district
court.

(when "the district

that

review

court has not granted

. . . appellant may submit a request for a

of

a

be directed to the
4th Cir.
Loc.
R.

[COA]

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").

II.

On

March

15,

2013,

(Mot. to Vacate 19).4

Motion To Vacate

Williams

filed

his

resolution

explained

below,

to

Vacate.

In that motion, Williams requests relief

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
Court's

Motion

of

the

the

merits

Motion

to

of

his

Vacate

and challenges this
§

2254

must

be

Petition.

treated

As

as

a

successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.

The

Antiterrorism and Effective

restricted

the

second

successive

or

jurisdiction

of

Death

the

applications

Penalty Act

district

for

of
to

courts

federal

habeas

1996
hear

corpus

relief by prisoners attacking the validity of their convictions
and sentences by establishing a "gatekeeping mechanism."

v.

Turpin,

omitted).

518 U.S.

651,

657

Specifically,

"[b]efore

application permitted by this

court,

the

applicant

shall

(1996)

section

move

in

Felker

(internal quotation marks
a

second

is

filed in the district

the

or

successive

appropriate

court

of

appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider
the application."
Inmates

attacks

on

may

28 U.S.C.
not

their

avoid

§ 2244(b)(3)(A).
the

convictions

bar

and

on

successive

sentences

by

collateral

inventive

4 This appears to be the date Williams handed his Motion to
Vacate

to

prison

officials

for

mailing

to

this

Court.
to

Accordingly, that is the date the Court deems the Motion
Vacate filed.
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

labeling.

See

(4th Cir.

2003).

60 (b)

motions

failing

to

United

v.

Accordingly,

as

do

States

Winestock,

would

allow

F.3d

200,

206

"district courts must treat Rule

successive collateral

so

340

the

review applications when

applicant

to

^evade

the

bar

against relitigation of claims presented in a prior application

or the bar against litigation of claims not presented in a prior
application.'"
553

Id.

(quoting Calderon v. Thompson,

538,

(1998)).

The Supreme Court has instructed that when,
60(b)

as here,

a Rule

motion "seeks to revisit the federal court's denial on the

merits of a claim for relief [,

the Rule

treated as

petition."

545

523 U.S.

U.S.

directed

a successive
524,

to

successive §

534
file

2254

authorization

from

habeas

(2005).
the

Accordingly,

Motion

Petition.
the

60(b)

to

Vacate

Because

Fourth

motion]

Gonzalez v.
the

to

Clerk

(ECF

the Court

Circuit

should be

No.
has

file

will

31)

not

the

Crosby,
be

as

a

received

successive

petition, the action will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
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

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
only when

A petitioner

"reasonable jurists could

debate

whether

(or,

should

have

issues

presented

been

Williams

were

Barefoot
fails

that

resolved

proceed further.'"
(quoting

for

matter,

in

a

agree

different

^adequate

to

that)

the

manner

or

deserve

to

Estelle,
meet

this

463

U.S.

880,

standard.

that

encouragement

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
v.

petition

473,
893

A

the

to

484 (2000)

n.4

(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/

fclf

Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Date

: yf/?,a%}