Melvin Dodson v. Department of Corrections, No. 08-8402 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8402 MELVIN CORNNELL DODSON, Petitioner Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cv-00566-jlk-mfu) Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 22, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin Cornnell Dodson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Melvin Cornnell Dodson seeks to appeal the district court s dismissal of his second 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as successive because Dodson failed to obtain certification to file a successive petition from this court. The order is not appealable judge unless a circuit certificate of appealability. certificate of justice issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A appealability will or not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § by 2253(c)(2) (2006). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists this would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller- El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). conclude We that Accordingly, have Dodson we deny independently has not Dodson s reviewed made motion the the record requisite for a and showing. certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, and informal brief as we an construe Dodson s application to successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. notice file appeal second or United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). 2 a of In order to obtain authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, the claims presented must not have been presented in a prior petition and must be based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable through the exercise of due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of § 2244(b)(1), (2) (2006). of the above the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. Dodson s claim does not satisfy any criteria. Accordingly, we deny Dodson authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
