Barnes v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 11/4/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
KELLY D. BARNES,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:13CV652
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Kelly D. Barnes has submitted a motion asking for an extension of time in which to file a
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Federal Courts, however, lackjurisdiction to consider the
timeliness of a § 2254 petition until it is actually filed. Gregory v. Bassett, No. 3:07cv790, 2009
WL 455267, at *2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 23, 2009) (citations omitted); see United States v. White, 257
F. App'x 608, 609 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding that no case orcontroversy existed before §2255
motion was actually filed (citing United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 2000))).
Because a § 2254 petition did not accompany Barnes's motion for an extension of time and
because the motion did notcontain any cognizable claims for habeas relief, Barnes's motion for
an extension oftime (ECF No. 1-2) will be DENIED. See Ramirez v. United States, 461 F.
Supp. 2d 439, 440-41 (E.D. Va. 2006) (citations omitted).
This action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Clerk isDIRECTED to forward to Barnes the form for filing a petition under 28
U.S.C. §2254. Any §2254 petition that Barnes files must conform to the rules governing such
motions and be sworn to under the penalty ofperjury. See Rules Governing §2254 Proceedings
for the U.S. District Courts, Rule 2(c). Barnes also is advised that §2254 petitions are subject to
a one-year statute of limitations and a restriction against second or successive petitions. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3), (d).
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 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)). No law or evidence suggests that Barnes is entitled to further consideration in this
matter. A certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED.
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
And it is so ORDERED.
Date:""*'^
Richmond, Virginia
JsL
James R. Spencer
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?