Louis Fuller v. Leroy Cartlidge, No. 14-6443 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6443 LOUIS ENGLISH FULLER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLIDGE, Warden MCCI, Respondent Appellee, and HENRY MCMASTER, AG, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (0:09-cv-01352-RBH) Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 3, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis English Fuller, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Louis court s order English Fuller construing in seeks part to his appeal Fed. R. the Civ. district P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, and dismissing it on that basis, and denying relief in part. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). certificate of appealability will not issue absent A a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fuller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 Additionally, and informal brief we as construe an Fuller s application successive § 2254 petition. to notice file a of appeal second or 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 have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. § 2244(b)(2) (2012). these criteria. would 28 U.S.C. Fuller s claims do not satisfy either of Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this 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.
