Frankie Miller, Jr. v. Harold Clarke, No. 21-6643 (4th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6643 FRANKIE M. MILLER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:20-cv-00505-MSD-DEM) Submitted: November 18, 2021 Decided: November 19, 2021 Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frankie M. Miller, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frankie M. Miller, Jr., appeals the district court’s order construing his pleading, which was captioned as a “Request for Chief Judge[’]s Review of Facts of Case, Appointment of Investigators in Manner Deemed Appropriate by Chief Judge” as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and dismissing it on that basis. ∗ Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Miller’s pleading as a successive § 2254 petition over which it lacked jurisdiction because Miller failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Miller’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. Upon review, we conclude that Miller’s claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. 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. AFFIRMED A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a pleading as an unauthorized, successive habeas petition. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015). ∗ 2
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.
