Williams v. Clarke, No. 3:2011cv00417 - Document 45 (E.D. Va. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 7/18/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )

Download PDF

Williams v. Clarke Doc. 45 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS, Petitioner, Civil Action No. Civil Action No. v. 3:11CV417 3:13CV245 HAROLD CLARKE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Vincent Eugene Williams, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 21, In the § 2254 Petition, Williams challenged the August 2009 decision of the Circuit Court for the Stafford ("Circuit Court") to revoke his probation. Clarke, No. 2013) . 2013, Id. 3:11CV417, of Williams v. at *1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 6, By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on February 6, the Court denied the petition and dismissed the action. at *5. Thereafter, Time 2013 WL 458545, County (ECF Nos. 42 ("Second Sanctions Federal Williams 40 Motion (ECF Rule of No. ("First for two Motion Extension 41), Civil reasons that follow, filed and a Procedure Motions for of for Extension Extension Time")), Motion to 60(b) (ECF a Vacate No. of Time"), Motion pursuant 43). of For for to the the Court will deny Williams's First Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 40), grant his Second Motion for Dockets.Justia.com Extension (ECF No. of Time 41), (ECF No. 42), deny his Motion and file his Motion to Vacate as for Sanctions an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition (ECF No. 43). I. Motions For Extension Of Time In his First Motion for Extension of Time, that he has decision by "a fundamental submitting his right motion judgment for reconsideration." seeks "an motions additional and twenty affidavits to to challenge vacate (ECF No. (20) intended days to in be Procedure 59(e) pursue (Id. M 2, inter alia, Rules In his 30 day [and] order to (Id. Court's aside the Williams prepare 5 all 3.) In 3.) Rule of Civil The Federal Rules of See Fed. R. Civ. P. (precluding courts from extending the time to act under, 59(e) and Motion for Extension of Time "a set 40 SI 2.)1 Federal Civil Procedure prohibit such an extension. 6(b)(2) the Williams appears to seek a motion under or 60(b). or filed." his First Motion for Extension of Time, additional time to Williams insists Second Motion time extention motion 1 The for Court COA has 60(b)). (ECF No. Accordingly, 40) [to] file his [{certificate of corrected the quotations to Williams's submissions. First will be denied. for Extension of Time, [sic] the Williams seeks notice of appeal appealability)]." capitalization (ECF in the No. 42, at 2.) Williams represents that his incarceration and the burden of ligating multiple actions make it difficult for him to meet the deadline for noting an appeal. Upon good cause see Fed. shown, R. App. P. Williams's Second Motion for Extension of Time be granted in part. (Id. at 1-2.) 4 (a) (5) (A) (ii) , (ECF No. 42) will Specifically, Williams will be granted an extension of fourteen (14) days from the date of entry hereof to file a notice of appeal.2 Furthermore, if Williams wishes to challenge this Court's denial of a certificate of appealability ("COA"), he should file such a challenge with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.3 II. Motion For Sanctions In his Motion for Sanctions, Williams contends that, counsel for Respondent has interfered with his ability to access the law 2 "No extension under . . . Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days after the prescribed time or 14 days after the date when the order granting the motion is entered, whichever is later." Fed. R. App. P. 4 (a) (5) (C) . 3 Local Rule for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth district Fourth Circuit court's Circuit 22(a)(1)(A) denial not the of contemplates a COA district should court. that be review directed 4th Cir. of a to the Loc. R. 22(a)(1)(A) (when "the district court has not granted a [COA] . . . appellant may submit a request for a [COA] with the Court of Appeals specifying the issues on which the appellant seeks authorization to appeal and giving a statement of the reasons why a certificate should be issued"). library. (ECF No. 41, at 2.) Williams fails to demonstrate any actions by counsel for Respondent that warrant the imposition of sanctions. No. 41) Accordingly, Williams's Motion for Sanctions (ECF will be denied. III. On March 12, 2013, (ECF No. 43-3, at l.)4 under Federal Court's Rule resolution explained below, Motion To Vacate Williams the the Procedure merits Motion to Antiterrorism restricted the second successive or and of his Motion to Vacate. of § and challenges this 2254 must Petition. be treated As as a § 2254 petition. Effective jurisdiction 60(b) Vacate successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C. The his In that motion, Williams requests relief of Civil of filed Death the applications Penalty Act district for courts federal of 1996 to hear habeas corpus relief by prisoners attacking the validity of their convictions and sentences by establishing a "gatekeeping mechanism." v. Turpin, omitted). 518 U.S. 651, Specifically, 657 (1996) "[b]efore application permitted by this (internal a section is Felker quotation second or filed in marks successive the district 4 This is the date on the cover letter that accompanied Williams's Motion to Vacate and apparently the date he handed his Motion to Vacate to prison officials for mailing to this Court. Accordingly, that is the date the Court deems the Motion to Vacate filed. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The United States instructed that collateral attacks inmates inventive 200, (4th treat Rule not the avoid States motions as on and v. Accordingly, Fourth Circuit bar convictions United 2003). 60(b) for the their See Cir. of Appeals may on labeling. 206 Court successive sentences Winestock, 340 F.3d courts "district successive by must collateral review applications when failing to do so would allow the applicant to ^evade prior the bar against application presented in a Thompson, 523 U.S. or relitigation the prior bar of against 553 Id. merits in a claims not Calderon v. (1998)). as here, a Rule motion "seeks to revisit the federal court's denial on the of a claim for relief[, treated as 545 U.S. Motion the Court file the Rule 60(b) a successive habeas petition." 524, the to of (quoting The Supreme Court has instructed that when, 60(b) presented litigation application.'" 538, claims 534 to has the (2005). Vacate not as a The Clerk will successive § successive for want of jurisdiction. petition, the Gonzalez should be v. Crosby, be directed to 2254 received authorization motion] Petition. from the action file Because Fourth Circuit will be dismissed An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA will not issue unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." satisfies this requirement debate whether should have issues presented (or, been were (quoting Barefoot fails for only when that resolved proceed further.'" Williams 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). "reasonable jurists could matter, in a agree to to Estelle, meet this the or deserve Slack v. McDaniel, v. that) manner different ^adequate A petitioner 880, standard. that encouragement 529 U.S. 463 U.S. petition 473, 893 A 484 n.4 the to (2000) (1983)). certificate of appealability will therefore be denied. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Williams and counsel of record. /s/ Robert E. flU Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date : 9^$*^

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.