Baines v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 5/15/14. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

ARTIS BAINES,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil Action No. 3:14CV180

EDDIE L. PEARSON,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner, Artis Baines, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted this petition for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions in the Circuit

Court of the County of Henrico of first degree murder. By Memorandum Opinion and Order
entered on May 1, 2009, the Court previously dismissed a § 2254 petition from Baines

concerning this matter. See Baines v. Watson, No. 3:08cv459, 2009 WL 1209044, at *3 (E.D.
Va. May 1,2009).

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, "[bjefore
a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the 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). Because Baines has not obtained

authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to file a

successive § 2254 petition challenging his murder conviction, this Court lacks jurisdiction to

entertain the present § 2254 petition. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED FOR LACK
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." 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 Baines is entitled to further consideration in this
matter. A certificate of appealability will be DENIED.

An appropriate Final Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Isl

James R. Spencer
SeniorU. S. DistrictJudge
Richmond, Virginia