Roulhac v. Dillman

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 05/09/14. (kyou, )(copy mailed to Pro Se party)

fl

L

E

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MAY - 9 2014

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT I

RICHMOND, VA

CLARENCE ROULHAC, JR.
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:14CV211-HEH

v.

JEFFREY N. DILLMAN,

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Dismissing Successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition)
Petitioner, Clarence Roulhac, Jr., a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted

this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition")

challenging his convictions for murder and arson in the Circuit Court of the City of
Portsmouth. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on November 3, 2000, the
Court denied Roulhac's prior § 2254 petition challenging the same convictions. Roulhac
v. Baskerville, No. 3:00cvl60 (E.D. Va. Nov. 3, 2000).

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

appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." 28 U.S.C.

j

§ 2244(b)(3)(A). Because Roulhac has not obtained authorization from the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to file a successive § 2254 petition, this Court
lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present § 2254 petition. Accordingly, the action will be
dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction.
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 Roulhac is entitled to further consideration in this matter. A

certificate of appealability will be denied.
An appropriate Order shall issue.
Is!

Date:^&y^6t«i
Richmond,Virginia

HENRY E. HUDSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE