Winslow v. Clarke

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 7/30/14. Copy sent: Yes (tdai, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

KERRY LEE WINSLOW,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil Action No. 3:14CV392

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition. By Memorandum Order entered on July 2, 2014, the Court directed Petitioner, within
eleven (11) days of the date of entry thereof, to pay the $5.00 filing fee or explain any special
circumstances that would warrant excusing payment of the filing fee.

The Court warned

Petitioner it would dismiss the action if Petitioner did not pay the filing fee or explain any special
circumstances that would warrant excusing payment of the filing fee. More than eleven (11)

days have elapsed since the entry of the July 2, 2014 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 a judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability
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,