Newkirk v. Dept. of Corrections

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 5/24/18. (Copy mailed to petitioner). (jtho, )

HE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

2 i 2018

Richmond Division

ClLi IK

KENNETH NEWKIRK,

uijj,
RfCHMOMn

Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:18CV3I2-HEH

V.

DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONS

Respondent.

)
MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Dismissing Without Prejudice 28 U.S.C.§ 2254 Petition)
Kenneth Newkirk, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254("§ 2254 Petition"). By Memorandum Opinion and Order
entered on September 9, 2013(ECF Nos. 6, 7), the Court dismissed an earlier 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 petition filed by Newkirk for failure to exhaust his state court remedies. See

Newkirk v. Lerner, No. 3:13CV570-HEH, 2013 WL 4811219, at * 1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 9,
2013)("Newkirk /"). The Order in Newkirk I informed Newkirk:

Before the Court will consider any future habeas petition from Newkirk, he must
explain how he has exhausted his state court remedies. Accordingly, Newkirk
must attach to the front of any future petition the following statement:
"1 have pursued all of my state court remedies for the claims and convictions
described herein." Failure to comply with this directive will result in summary
dismissal of the action.

Newkirk I, No. 3:13CV570-HEH (E.D. Va. Sept. 9, 2013), ECF No. 7.

coTjrt

Newkirk's current § 2254 Petition fails to comply with the Court's prior Order.
Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. A certificate of
appealability will be denied.

Newkirk also requests that "U.S. Magistrate Robert [sic] C. Young and U.S.
District Judge Henry Hudson be forever barred off all my cases, to be forever recused off
[of] this case and all of my cases." (Mot. Recusal I, ECF No. 3 (capitalization
corrected).) The bar for recusal is high, as "courts have only granted recusal motions in

cases involving particularly egregious conduct." Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573
(4th Cir. 2011). Contraiy to Newkirk's belief, unfavorable "judicial rulings alone almost
never constitute a valid basis for a bias ... motion" or a valid reason to demand recusal

of a judge. Litekyv. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)(citation omitted). Newkirk
has not demonstrated that either the undersigned or the Honorable Roderick C. Young
harbors any bias against him or any circumstance where the impartiality of either the
undersigned or Judge Young might reasonably be questioned. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 144,
455. Accordingly, the Motion for Recusal(ECF No. 3) will be denied.
An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

JsL

Date: rnAuZ'j26/

Richmond,Virginia

Henry E. Hudson
United States District Judge