Godfrey v. Norfolk Circuit Court
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 07/26/2018. Copy mailed to petitioner.(tjoh, )
IP 1
i u..
L
E
nl
i
JUL 28 2018
Jil
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND. VA
RASHAD GODFREY,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:18CV416
V.
NORFOLK CIRCUIT COURT,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.
By Memorandum Order entered on July 3,2018,the Court directed Petitioner to pay the $5.00
filing fee or submit an appropriate informa pauperis affidavit within fifteen(15)days ofthe date
of entry thereof. Additionally, the Court informed Petitioner that in the United States District
Court for the Eastem District of Virginia, all pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpora must be
filed on a set of standardized forms. See E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 83.4(A). The Court mailed
Petitioner the standardized form for filing a § 2254 petition and directed him to complete and
return the form to the Court within eleven(11)days ofthe date of entry hereof. The Court
warned Petitioner that the failure to complete and return the form in a timely manner would
result in dismissal ofthe action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
More than fifteen(15)days have elapsed since the entry ofthe July 3,2018
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 ajudge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability
will not issue imless a prisoner makes"a substantial showing ofthe 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)). No law or evidence suggests that Petitioner is entitled to further
consideration in this matter. A certificate of appealability will be DENIED.
An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
M. Hanna
United States District Judge
Date: JUL 26 .
Richmond, Virginia
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?