Raymond Van Field v. State of Maryland, No. 17-6949 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6949 RAYMOND CALVIN VAN FIELD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:17-cv-01048-PWG) Submitted: February 27, 2018 Decided: April 4, 2018 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Calvin Van Field, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond Calvin Van Field seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his filing as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying relief. 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). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 Van Field has not made the requisite showing. To the extent Van Field intended his filing to be an appeal of the state courts’ dismissal of his motion to reopen proceedings, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal, as “a United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings.” D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). In any event, Van Field has failed to demonstrate a debatable claim of the denial of a federal constitutional right. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 2 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.
