Petit v. Clarke

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roderick C. Young on 12/21/15. (mailed to pro se plaintiff).(jtho, )

IN THE UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT COURT

rn

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

b

n

DEC 2 I 2015
ALLAN THOMAS PETIT,
CLLt>K, u s

[•-••Kiu.i

Petitioner,
V.

Civil Action No. 3:I5CV309

HAROLD CLARKE,

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Alan Thomas Petit, a Virginiastate prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. 1). Petitioners who seek habeas relief

under28 U.S.C. § 2254 are limited to challenging thejudgment of a single state court. See Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 2(e). "A petitioner who seeks
relieffrom judgmentsof more than one state court must file a separate petition covering the

judgment or judgments of eachcourt." Id. In the present action. Petit sought to challenge
separatejudgments from the General District Court of the City of Virginia Beach and the Circuit
Court of the City of Virginia Beach. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on December

1,2015, the Court informed Petit that the Court would not consider any challenges to the General

District Court Judgment in the present action. The Court explained that Petit remains free to
pursue any challenges to thatjudgment in his other pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Petit v.
Clarke, 3:15CV308 (E.D. Va. filed May 21,2015), which specifically challenges the General
District Court Judgment.

The Court further directed Petit, within fifteen (15) days of the date of entry thereof, to

file an amended § 2254 petition for the presentaction limited solely to claims that challenge the

Court

Circuit Court's Judgment. The Court warned Petit that the failure to complete and return the

form in a timely manner would result in dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
More than fifteen (15) have elapsed since the entry of the December 1, 2015
Memorandum Order and Petit has failed to file an amended § 2254 petition or otherwise respond.
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 ("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.
McDaniei, 529 U.S. 473,484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 8l n.4
(1983)). Petit fails to meet this standard.

An appropriate Order shall issue.

/s/

^
Date; \Z 7.1

2.01 S

Richmond, Virginia

Roderick C. Young

United States Magistrate Jud^