Johnson v. Pearson

Filing 7

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
Richmond Division

FRED LEE JOHNSON,

Petitioner,
V.

Civil Action No. 3:17CV306

EDDIE L. PEARSON,

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

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.

Date:'

/7

Richmond, Virginia

John A. Gibney, Jr.J J
United States Disti^t fw