Williams v. Clarke
Filing
2
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%}
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?