Whitlock v. Director, Virginia DOC

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 5/28/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

DARRELL WHITLOCK,

Petitioner,
v.

Civil Action No. 3:12CV744

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DOC,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner, Darrell Whitlock, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted this

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2006
convictions of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony in the Circuit Court for
the County of Chesterfield, Virginia. The Court previously dismissed a § 2254 Petition from
Whitlock challenging these convictions. See Whitlockv. Dir., Va. Dep't. Corr.,No. 3:09-CV192,2010 WL 1279088, at *9 (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2010).

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 Whitlock has not obtained
authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to file a

successive § 2254 petition challenging his convictions, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain
the present § 2254 petition. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION.

An appeal may notbe 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, forthatmatter, 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 Whitlock is entitled to further consideration in this
matter. A certificate of appealability will be DENIED.

An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

James R. Spencer

DateifT-^-'^
Richmond, Virginia

United States District Judge