Johnson v. Vargo, No. 3:2012cv00608 - Document 3 (E.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 9/25/12. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division COREY E. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:12CV608 M. VARGO, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Corey E. Johnson, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, submitted this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Johnson challenges his convictions in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond. The Court previously dismissed another 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition by Johnson challenging these convictions. See Johnson v. Kelly, No. 3:07CV731, 2008 WL 3992638, *2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 28, 2008). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 restricted the jurisdiction of the district courts to hear second or successive applications for federal habeas corpus relief by prisoners attacking the validity of their convictions and sentences by establishing a "gatekeeping mechanism." Felkerv. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, "[b]efore a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizingthe district court to consider the application." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The Court has not received authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to file the present § 2254 Petition. Therefore, the action will be DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. Johnson's motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 1) will be DENIED. An appealmay 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." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). Because Johnson fails to satisfy this standard, a certificate of appealability will be denied. An appropriate Final Order shall issue. 4/teL E. Hudson Henry /s/ Date: O^HSao/V Richmond, Virginia United States District Judge
]]>
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.
