Echols v. Angelone, No. 3:2001cv00155 - Document 43 (E.D. Va. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 9/3/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ROY FRANKLIN ECHOLS, JR., Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:01CV155 Civil Action No. v. 3:13CV378 RON ANGELONE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on Court the June 18, § Franklin denied Echols, a petition Jr. challenging two counts of murder, June 18, 2001) . 60(b). 2013, requested By the On October relief Memorandum Court found unauthorized petition matter for want of his U.S.C. by Roy convictions Virginia Echols v. Angelone, 12, "MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT" Echols 28 2254 for one count of malicious wounding, related firearm offenses. Va. under under and Rule under 28 No. Rule Order and three 01CV155 the Court ("Rule 60(b) Federal Opinion the 2012, 2001, received a Motion"), of Civil entered wherein Procedure on June 13, 60(b) Motion was U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissed the jurisdiction. On June 27, a (E.D. 2013, successive, the Court received from Echols a document which he styled as "PETITION FOR REHEARING AND filed the REHEARING foregoing ENBANC." petition (ECF No. within 40.) twenty-eight Because (28) Echols days of the entry of the June 13, Court will Federal consider Rule Motion") . F.3d of MLC 277-78 F.2d 807, 809 petition Procedure Auto., (4th as a motion 59(e) LLC Cir. (4th Cir. the Rule 59(e) The Civil See 269, the 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order, v. 1978)). relief under "Rule 59(e) (hereinafter Town 2008) for of (citing Southern Dove Pines, 532 CODESCO, v. For the reasons 569 stated herein, Motion will be denied. United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized three grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; account for correct a new evidence clear Hutchinson v. error {D. F.R.D. any Md. 625, basis 1991); 626 for Accordingly, of Staton, (citing Weyerhaeuser 1419 the (S.D. available law or 994 Corp. v. Miss. 1081 Co., (2) (3) or to to injustice." {4th Cir. 1993) F. Supp. 1406, 771 LeTourneau Co., 130 Echols fails to demonstrate under 59(e) trial; manifest Marathon 1990)). relief Rule 1076, Koppers v. at prevent F.2d Atkins granting Echols's not " (1) the Motion above (ECF three No. grounds. 40) will be denied. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless ("COA") . 28 a judge issues a certificate of U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA appealability will not issue unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied debate whether (or, should have issues presented been for Echols fails to that resolved were proceed further.'" (quoting Barefoot only when "reasonable matter, in a agree different ^adequate to v. Estelle, satisfy 463 this that) the manner or deserve Slack v. McDaniel, 880, could petition that encouragement 529 U.S. U.S. jurists 893 standard. 473, 484 & n.4 the to (2000) (1983)). Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will be denied. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Echols. An appropriate Order shall issue. /s/ £tt Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia : JjfuJb^z $, 10ft Date:
]]>
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.
