Winbush v. Unknown
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 09/04/2020. Copy mailed to Petitioner. (walk, )
Case 3:20-cv-00503-DJN-RCY Document 4 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
OTIS B. WINBUSH,
Petitioner,
Civil No.3:20cv503(DJN)
UNKNOWN,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Court received a letter from Petitioner. Given the content ofthis letter, the Court
deemed it appropriate to give Plaintiff the opportunity to pursue this action as a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Rivenbark v. Virginia, 305 F. App'x 144,145
(4th Cir. 2008)(finding that district court should have construed inmate's filing as a § 2254
petition). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on July 17, 2020, the Court sent
Petitioner the form for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Court informed Petitioner if he
wished to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he must complete the § 2254 Petition form and
return the same to the Court within twenty(20)days ofthe date ofentry thereof. The Court
warned Petitioner that the failure to return to the § 2254 Petition form within twenty(20)days of
the date ofentry thereof would result in the dismissal ofthe action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
More than twenty(20)days have elapsed since the entry of the July 17,2020
Memorandum Order and Petitioner has not responded. Accordingly, the action will be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Case 3:20-cv-00503-DJN-RCY Document 4 Filed 09/04/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 9
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)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability
will not issue unless a prisoner makes"a substantial showing ofthe denial ofa 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. The Court will DENY Petitioner a certificate of appealability.
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Let the Clerk file a copy ofthe Memorandum Opinion electronically and send a copy to
Petitioner.
/s/
David J. Novak
United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Dated: September 4.2020
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?