Eddricco Brown-Bey v. State of North Carolina, No. 21-7599 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-7599 EDDRICCO L. BROWN-BEY, In Propria Persona Sui Juris Being restrained under the Ex Relatione: other, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; MILTON FLETCHER, Prosecutor; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADULT CORRECTIONS; ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00247-MR) Submitted: May 19, 2022 Decided: May 23, 2022 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddricco Li’shaun Brown-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eddricco L. Brown-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his “emergency petition” for a writ of habeas corpus as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and dismissing it as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown-Bey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED 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.
