Warren Chase v. Commissioner of Maryland, No. 10-6137 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6137 WARREN CHASE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:09-cv-03009-CCB) Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 21, 2010 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Warren Chase filed a hybrid complaint in the district court seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) and seeking an order transferring him to a different institution. That part of the order dismissing his § 2254 petition as successive and without authorization from this court is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). issue absent constitutional prisoner a A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional 28 this by U.S.C. find the of the § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims showing that district by any denial of (2006). demonstrating assessment court is a A that of debatable the 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). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Chase has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss in part the appeal. Additionally, we construe Chase s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 2 United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by 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 petitioner guilty of the offense. not satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2006). either of these criteria. Chase s claims do Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. Insofar as Chase sought an order compelling the Respondents to transfer him to another institution, we note an inmate has no justifiable expectation that he will incarcerated in any particular prison within a State[. ] v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983). be Olim We further note Chase failed to state a claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. See Pennsylvania Dep t of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 212-13 (1998). Accordingly, Chase s claim in this regard was without merit and we affirm in part the district court s order. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss in part and affirm in part the district court s order. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 4
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.
