Anderson II v. Director of V.D.O.C.

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 05/25/2017. (mailed copy to pro se Petitioner) (nbrow)

IN THE UNITED STA.TES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
WILLIAM L. ANDERSON, III,
Petitioner,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:17CV360

DIRECTOR OF V.D.O.C.,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
William L. Anderson, III, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, submitted this 28 U .S.C.
§ 2254 Petition (ECF No. 1). Anderson challenges his 2009 convictions for bank robbery and
obstruction of justice in the Washington County Circuit Court.

This Court has previously

transferred two § 2254 petitions to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Virginia challenging the same convictions.

The district court in the Western District has

previously denied another 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition filed by Anderson challenging these
Washington County convictions and found yet another § 2254 petition was successive. See

Anderson v. Dir. of VDOC, No. 3:14CV00202, 2014 WL 12519661, at *l (W.D. Va. April 30,
2014) (citing Anderson v. Dep't of Corr., No. 7:12CV00323 (W.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2012)).
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 restricted the jurisdiction of
the district courts to hear second or successive applications for federal habeas corpus relief by
prisoners attacking the validity of their convictions and sentences by establishing a "gatekeeping
mechanism." Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted).
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 consider the application." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The Court

has not received authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to
file the present § 2254 Petition.

Therefore, the action will be DISMISSED for want of

jurisdiction.
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)(l)(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.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)).
Because Anderson fails to satisfy this standard, a certificate of appealability will be DENIED.
An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Isl
Date:

John A. Gibney, Jr.

512-5/17

United States Dis · t

Richmond, Virginia

2