Robert Eason v. Joseph Hall, No. 13-6155 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6155 ROBERT EUGENE EASON, Petitioner Appellant, v. JOSEPH B. HALL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-hc-02006-FL) Submitted: May 16, 2013 Decided: June 12, 2013 Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Eugene Eason, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Eason seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition without prejudice as petition. an Eason unauthorized placed his second petition or successive form and a § 2254 memorandum elaborating on the petition in two separate envelopes, causing the district court to docket two separate cases. The district court dismissed the action that was filed second in time as second or successive, even though the first petition was still pending and awaiting adjudication. We grant a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the district court erred in dismissing the instant petition as an unauthorized second or successive petition within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (2006), but we affirm the district court s dismissal of the petition without prejudice on the ground that it was improvidently docketed as a new petition. We deny a certificate of appealability on any other issues raised by Eason. Accordingly, we grant in part and deny in part Eason s motion for a certificate of appealability and grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 2 in the material before this court and argument will not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.