Arline v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. The Clerk will be directed to treat the Rule 60(b) Motion 1 as a successive §2254 Petition. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 11/4/2013. (tjoh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA:
Richmond Division

LEONARD H. ARLINE,

)

Petitioner,

j

jf

"

]j r-"

|j j N0V 52013

^

Cl
Civil Action No. 3:13CV498-HEH

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Dismissing Successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition)

By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on February 22, 2007, the Court
denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition filed by Leonard H. Arline challenging his 2002

convictions in the Circuit Court for the City of Suffolk. Arline v. Kelly, No. 3:06-cv261-HEH (E.D. Va. Feb. 22, 2007), ECF No. 15-16. On July 30, 2013, the Court
received from Arline a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) ("Rule 60(b) Motion," ECF No. 1). As explained below, the
Rule 60(b) Motion must be treated as a successive, unauthorized § 2254 petition.
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

"i