Hawthorne v. Warden Kiser et. al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. SEE OPINION for complete details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 11/21/2017. Copy mailed to Petitioner.(ccol, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA~
Richmond Division
DERRICK JEROME HAWTHORNE,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN KISER,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

l - - -~- - .
NOV 2 I 20!7

CLERK, U.S. Di.STM1CT COURT
RICHMOND VA

Civil Action No. 3: l 7CV541-HEH

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Dismissing 28 U.S.C § 2254 Petition Without Prejudice)
Petitioner, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding prose, submitted a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 petition. On October 3, 2017, the Court entered a Memorandum Order directing
Petitioner to pay the $5.00 filing fee, or explain any special circumstances that would
warrant excusing payment of the filing fee, within eleven ( 11) days of the date of entry
thereof. ("Memorandum Order," ECF No. 6.) Further, the Court warned Petitioner that
failure to do so would result in dismissal. More than eleven ( 11) days have elapsed since
the entry of the Memorandum Order, and Petitioner has not responded. Accordingly, the
action will be dismissed without prejudice.
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l)(A). A certificate of
appealability 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."' Slackv. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). No law
or evidence suggests that Petitioner is entitled to further consideration in this matter. The
Court will deny a certificate of appealability.
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Isl
HENRY E. HUDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: No\l. 21 12017
Richmond, Virginia

2