Claiborne v. Director of Dept. of Corrections
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Read Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 07/20/2017. Copy mailed to Petitioner as directed.(ccol, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
TYEL LASHAWN CLAIBORNE,
JUL 2 42m7
1-
l CLER~~~8'.~cOURT
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:17CV471
DIR. OF DEPT. OF CORR.,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner,
proceeding
Tyel
pro
Lashawn
filed
se,
Claiborne,
this
a
u.s.c.
28
Virginia
2254
§
inmate
Petition
challenging his conviction in the Circuit Court of the City of
Richmond
for
U.S.C.
2254
§
murder.
Dir.
at
Va.
below,
{E.D.
the
Court
previously
has
petition challenging the above
Claiborne v.
*5
The
Dep't
Mar.
Court
Corr.,
13,
will
No.
successive, unauthorized 28
u.s.c.
2012
Accordingly,
dismiss
the
§
§
a
conviction.
3:11CV368,
2012).
denied
2254
28
See
WL 859559,
as
explained
Petition
as
a
2254 petition.
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.
"[b) efore a
by
Turpin,
establishing
518
U.S.
651,
a
"' gatekeeping'
657
{1996).
mechanism."
Specifically,
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.
the
Fourth
§ 2244(b) (3) (A) .
The Court has
not
received authorization from
Circuit to file the present § 2254 petition.
Therefore,
action will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
the
The Court
denies a certificate of appealability.
An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum
Opinion.
/s/
^
y
Date:
Richmond/ Viirginia
Robert E. Payne
4^/
Senior United States District Judge
(
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?