Johnson v. Pearson
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 6/28/2017. (cgar)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
FRED LEE JOHNSON,
Civil Action No. 3:17CV306
EDDIE L. PEARSON,
Petitioner, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, submitted a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.
In his present petition, Petitioner challenges his 2006 conviction for forcible rape in the Circuit
Court for the City of Richmond. (§ 2254 Pet. 1, ECF No. 4.) Petitioner currently has another
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pending before this Court wherein he challenges the same
conviction. See Johnson v. Pearson, No. 3:17CV239 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 29, 2017). The
pertinent statutes do not permit inmates to litigate muhiple or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petitions. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order
entered on May 25, 2017, the Court directed Petitioner, within eleven (11) days of the date of
entry thereof, to show good cause why the present petition should not be dismissed without
prejudice to Petitioner's litigation of his claims currently pending in Johnson v. Pearson, No.
3:17CV239 (E.D. Va.). The Court warned that a failure to comply with the Court's directive
would result in summary dismissal of the action.
More than eleven (11) days have expired since the entry of the May 25, 2017
Memorandum Order and Petitioner has failed to respond.
Accordingly, the action will be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. To the extent necessary, a certificate of appealability
will be DENIED.
An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
John A. Gibney, Jr.J J
United States Disti^t fw
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?