Wilson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 9/24/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
TIMOTHY WILSON,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:13CV188-HEH
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Granting Motion to Dismiss Successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition)
Timothy Wilson, a Virginia inmate proceedingpro se, submitted this 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition. Wilson challenges his convictions in the Circuit Court of the County of
Orange. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia previously
dismissed as untimely another 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition by Wilson challenging these
convictions. See Wilson v. Johnson, No. 7:09CV00527, 2010 WL 256671, at *1-4 (W.D.
Va. Jan. 21, 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 reliefby prisoners attacking the validity of their convictions and sentences
by establishing a "gatekeeping mechanism." Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, "[b]efore a second or successive
application permitted by this section is filed inthe 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). The Court has not received authorization
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to file the present § 2254
Petition. Therefore, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) will be granted. The
action will be dismissed for want ofjurisdiction.
An appeal may not be taken from the final orderin 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)). Because
Wilson fails to satisfy this standard, a certificate of appealability will be denied.
An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
0
Date: \£^ at, _t*i3
Richmond, Virginia
Ml
/s/
HENRY E.HUDSON
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?