Meyers v. Newton

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 11/4/2013. (tjoh, )

"""I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

, j NOV 4 2013
CLL

DAVID MEYERS,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:13CV546

JEFFERY L. NEWTON,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner, aVirginia state prisoner proceedingpro se, submitted a28 U.S.C. §2254
petition. By Memorandum Order entered on September 24, 2013, the Court directed Petitioner
within eleven (11) days ofthe date ofentry thereof to show good cause why the present petition

should not be dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner's litigation ofhis claims currently
pending in Meyers v. Newton, No. 3:12CV857 (E.D. Va.). The Court warned Petitioner that the

failure to comply with the Court's directive would result in summary dismissal ofthe action.
More than eleven (11) days have elapsed since the entry ofthe September 24, 2013
Memorandum Order and Petitioner has not responded. Accordingly, the action will be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a§2254 proceeding unless ajudge

issues acertificate ofappealability. 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(1)(A). Acertificate ofappealability
will not issue unless aprisoner makes "a substantial showing ofthe denial ofaconstitutional

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,