Jarrett D. Holden v. Harold Clarke, No. 14-6104 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6104 JARRETT D. HOLDEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VA. D.O.C., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-01591-TSE-TRJ) Submitted: April 23, 2014 Decided: May 9, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jarrett D. Holden, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jarrett D. Holden seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as successive his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012), in which he claimed that his sentence of mandatory life without parole is unconstitutional following the Supreme Court s decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2460, 2469 (2012). We granted Holden s motion for authorization to pursue this claim in the district court on June 16, 2013. In re: Holden, No. 13-264 (4th Cir. June 19, 2013) (unpublished order). Holden subsequently filed a successive § 2254 petition in the district court, which the district prejudice for failure to exhaust. court dismissed without The district court s order clearly stated that Petitioner may resubmit his claims to [the district court] after he has exhausted them in the Supreme Court of Virginia. Holden v. Clarke, No. 1:13-cv-00897-TSE-TRJ (E.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2013). The Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed Holden s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on November 7, 2013, and Holden refiled his December 27, 2013. petition as an § 2254 claim The district unauthorized, in the court district dismissed successive court on Holden s petition, and erroneously informed Holden that he needed to seek authorization from this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2012). 2 Because we have already granted Holden the requisite authorization under § 2244, we find that the district court s procedural ruling was in error. We therefore grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court s order, and remand with instructions for the district court to consider Holden s petition. In so doing, we express no opinion as to the procedural or substantive merits of Holden s claims. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 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.
