Bearfield v. Joyner
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 06/23/2016. Copy mailed to Petitioner. (walk, )
IL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
Jll 2 7 2016
MICHAEL LINK BEARFIELD,
CLERK, U.S. DIS1RICT COURT
RICHMOND VA
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:16CV344
v.
CARLTON JOYNER, et al. ,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered May 11,
2016,
the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina denied as untimely a 28 U.S.C.
2254 Petition filed by
§
Michael Link Bearfield, challenging his 2013 convictions in the
Wake County,
North Carolina Superior Court.
ECF No . 1- 8 , at 2 - 4 . }
successive,
On June 7,
unauthorized
challenging his
2013
28
2016,
U.S.C.
convictions
in
(ECF No.
1,
at 1;
this Court received a
§
2254
from
Bearfield
the
Wake
County Superior
Court.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
restricted
the
second
successive
or
jurisdiction
of
the
applications
district
for
federal
courts
habeas
to
hear
corpus
relief by prisoners attacking the validity of their convictions
and
sentences
Felker
v.
by
Turpin,
establishing
518
U.S.
651,
a
"'gatekeeping'
657
(1996}.
mechanism."
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
2244 (b) (3) (A).
consider
the
Because
application.
Bearfield
has
28
11
u.s.c.
obtained
not
authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit to file a successive
lacks
§
2254 petition,
jurisdiction to entertain the present
Accordingly,
jurisdiction. 2
the
action
will
be
§
dismissed
2254
this Court
petition. 1
for
lack
of
A certificate of appealability will be denied.
To the extent Bearfield intends to appeal the decision of
the
United States District Court
for
the
Eastern District of
North Carolina, he must note his appeal with that court.
1
The Eastern District of Virginia is also not the
appropriate jurisdiction to file a § 2254 petition challenging
Wake County, North Carolina convictions.
Because it is apparent
from the record that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain
the
successive
§
2254
Petition,
the
Court
nevertheless,
dismisses it without transferring the action.
2
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a §
2254
proceeding unless
a
judge
issues
a
certificate of
11
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.
2 8 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)).
Bearfield fails to satisfy this standard.
11
2
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion to Bearfield.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/
Date:
~7'3
Richmond%7 vi~;inia
1 'U;/b
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
3
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?