Huffman v. Parks
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT Prejudice. All pending motions are also DISMISSED without prejudice. (A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED). Signed by Chief District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 8/28/2024. (Opinion and Order mailed to Pro Se Party/Parties via US Mail)(aab)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
JULIAN HUFFMAN,
Petitioner,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
MAJOR PARKS,
Respondent.
$-&3,h40''*$&64%*45$0635
"530"/0,&
7"
'*-&%
August 28, 2024
-"63"""645*/
$-&3,
#:
s/A. Beeson
%&165:$-&3,
Civil Action Nos. 7:24cv000346
By: Elizabeth K. Dillon
Chief United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Julian Huffman, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that was docketed as Civil Action No. 7:24-cv-328 and
assigned to the undersigned district judge. 1 Soon after, Huffman filed the above-captioned
matter, which is another § 2254 petition. This later-filed action was initially assigned to another
district judge, who transferred the case to the undersigned district judge on August 8, 2024.
(Dkt. No. 17.) Both actions bring the same claim, challenging the same conviction in Wise
County Circuit Court, CR22F00194. Because the cases are duplicative, the court will dismiss
this action without prejudice.
It is HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. All
pending motions are also DISMISSED without prejudice. Finding that petitioner has not made a
substantial showing of the deprivation of a constitutional right, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court
1
The case was initially docketed as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but it was later construed by the
court to be a § 2254 petition.
DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk shall transmit a copy of this order
to Huffman.
Entered: August 28, 2024.
/s/ Elizabeth K. Dillon
Elizabeth K. Dillon
Chief United States District Judge
2
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?