Adams v. Clarke
OPINION AND ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Adams' §2254 petition is DISMISSED as successive, and this action is STRICKEN from the active docket of the court. As an alternative to entering a prefiling injunction barring all documents from Petitioner Adams, a prefiling injunction is ENTERED to PROHIBIT the Clerk from docketing any document from Petitioner that challenges his 2003 convictions. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 1/6/2022. (Opinion and Order mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(aab)
Case 7:21-cv-00406-MFU-JCH Document 6 Filed 01/06/22 Page 1 of 3 Pageid#: 56
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
DOMINIQUE HERMAN ADAMS,
Case No. 7:21CV00406
OPINION and ORDER
By: Michael F. Urbanski
Chief United States District Judge
Dominique Herman Adams, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging an alleged judgment
entered October 15, 2003, in the Roanoke City Circuit Court for attempted statutory
burglary and peeping into an occupied dwelling. 1 Upon reviewing the state court records
online, a charge of attempted statutory burglary on December 5, 2002, was nolle prossed 2 on
August 18, 2003. There is no conviction for “peeping into an occupied dwelling.” On
October 15, 2003, Adams was sentenced for two counts of statutory burglary, malicious
wounding, robbery, and one count of attempted entry in the night (alleged to have occurred
in December 2002) 3. Further, Adams has previously filed more than one previous § 2254
1 On July 15, 2021, Adams filed a motion to amend his petition to challenge January 7, 2003, convictions for
obstructing justice and carrying a concealed weapon, for which he received sentences of one month and six months,
respectively. The motion to amend (ECF No. 2) is DENIED, as it seeks to change the entire basis of the case. Further,
the misdemeanor convictions are eighteen years old and the records no longer available, and the amended petition would
be untimely under § 2254(b). Likewise, Adams is no longer serving the seven months and is not in custody on those
convictions at this time, as required by § 2254(a).
“Nolle pros,” a shortened form of the Latin phrase “nolle prosequi,” refers to the Commonwealth’s decision
to drop the charges against a defendant.
Based on the representations in Adams’ Declaration in Support of his Petition (ECF No. 1-1), attempted
entry in the nighttime may be the charge to which he is referring as attempted statutory burglary.
Case 7:21-cv-00406-MFU-JCH Document 6 Filed 01/06/22 Page 2 of 3 Pageid#: 57
petitions challenging those convictions. See Adams v. Watson, No. 7:10CV00383 (W.D.
Va.); Adams v. Holloway, No. 7:11CV00600 (W.D. Va.); and Adams v. Watson, No.
7:11CV00601 (W.D. Va.).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), a federal district court may consider a second or
successive § 2254 petition only upon certification from the United States Court of Appeals
that the claims in the subsequent petition meet certain criteria. Adams has not obtained
such certification from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. To the contrary, that Court has
denied Adams’ request to file successive petitions more than two dozen times: June 22, 2011;
January 10, 2012; February 13, 2012; March 14, 2012; May 1, 2012; October 10, 2012;
December 28, 2012; February 8, 2013; March 15, 2013; April 24, 2013; June 5, 2013; July 15,
2013; August 5, 2013; September 24, 2013; January 10, 2014; April 29, 2014; August 20,
2014; September 11, 2014; September 26, 2014; April 10, 2015; April 30, 2015; May 28, 2015;
July 7, 2015; September 16, 2015; November 30, 2017; and October 29, 2021 (four months
after the current § 2254 was filed). Each of the last five Orders from the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals noted Adams’ history of filing excessive frivolous requests to relitigate the
same issues in his habeas corpus petition, and the Court imposed a $500 sanction on Adams
by Order dated January 18, 2018. Adams v. Fleming, No. 17-440 (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2018).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Adams’ § 2254 petition is DISMISSED
as successive, and this action is STRICKEN from the active docket of the court. 4
Based on the court’s determination that this petition is not properly before the court, Adams’ motion for
discovery (ECF No. 3) is denied.
Case 7:21-cv-00406-MFU-JCH Document 6 Filed 01/06/22 Page 3 of 3 Pageid#: 58
The court takes notice that Adams’ incessant, meritless filings challenging his
October 2003 convictions, notwithstanding the prior orders of this court and the Court of
Appeals, lack good faith and constitute vexatious conduct that hinders the court from
fulfilling its constitutional duties. See, e.g., Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d
812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). As an alternative to entering a prefiling injunction barring all
documents from Petitioner Adams, a prefiling injunction is ENTERED to PROHIBIT
the Clerk from docketing any document from Petitioner that challenges his 2003
Further, finding that Adams has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a certificate of appealability is
The Clerk shall send a copy of this opinion and order to Adams.
ENTER: This 6th day of January, 2022.
Michael F. Urbanski
Chief U.S. District Judge
Michael F. Urbanski
Chief 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?