Williams v. Clarke, No. 3:2013cv00245 - Document 2 (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
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Clarke Doc. 2 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. 2013 WL 458545, 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 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 of Time"), Motion for pursuant to 43). For 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 of (ECF No. 41), Time (ECF No. 42) , deny his Motion I. § 2254 petition (ECF No. Motions 43). For Extension Of Time In his First Motion for Extension of Time, he decision has by "a fundamental submitting his right motion judgment for reconsideration." seeks "an additional motions twenty and affidavits to to (ECF No. (20) days time to Procedure 59(e) inter (Id. Court's aside the Williams prepare SI all 3.) In Williams appears to seek 3.) Civil Procedure prohibit such an extension. 6(b) (2) set 40 5 2.)1 filed." pursue a motion under (Id^ SIS! 2, or the in order to intended to be or 60(b). Williams insists challenge vacate his First Motion for Extension of Time, additional Sanctions and file his Motion to Vacate as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. that for Federal Rule of Civil The Federal Rules of See Fed. R. Civ. P. (precluding courts from extending the time to act under, alia, Rules 59(e) and 60(b)). Accordingly, the First Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 40) will be denied. In his Second Motion for Extension of Time, "a 30 day time extention [and] motion 1 The for COA Court has [sic] [to] [(certificate corrected Williams seeks file his notice of appeal of appealability)]." the quotations to Williams's submissions. capitalization (ECF in the No. 42, at 2.) the burden of Williams represents that his ligating multiple him to meet the deadline Upon good cause Williams's shown, actions incarceration and make it for noting an appeal. see Fed. R. App. (Id. P. Second Motion for Extension of Time difficult at for 1-2.) 4 (a) (5) (A) (ii) , (ECF No. 42) will be granted in part. Specifically, extension of fourteen (14) days from the date of entry hereof to file a notice of appeal.2 Williams will be granted an 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 In his Motion for Sanctions, 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 22(a) (1) (A) court's Circuit 22(a) (1) (A) denial not (when of the "the contemplates a COA district district . . . appellant may submit a should court. court request has for a that be review directed 4th not [COA] Cir. of to Loc. granted a a the R. [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. Accordingly, Williams's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 41) will be denied. III. On March 12, 2013, (ECF No. 43-3, at 1.)4 Motion To Vacate Williams filed his Motion to Vacate. In that motion, Williams requests relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and challenges this Court's resolution of the merits of his § 2254 Petition. explained below, As the Motion to Vacate must be treated as a successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Antiterrorism and Effective restricted the second successive or jurisdiction of Death Penalty Act the applications district for federal habeas 1996 to courts of hear corpus relief by prisoners attacking the validity of their convictions and sentences by establishing a "gatekeeping mechanism." v. Turpin, omitted). 518 U.S. 651, 657 Specifically, (1996) "[b]efore Felker (internal quotation marks a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district 4 This is the date on Williams's Motion to Vacate his Motion Court. to Vacate the and to prison cover letter that accompanied apparently the date he handed officials for mailing to this 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." The 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). United States Court of Appeals instructed that collateral inmates attacks may on their inventive labeling. See 200, (4th Cir. 2003). 206 treat Rule 60(b) not avoid the v. Accordingly, as Fourth Circuit bar on and convictions United States motions for the successive sentences Winestock, by 340 F.3d "district courts must successive collateral review applications when failing to do so would allow the applicant to *evade the bar against relitigation of claims presented in a prior application or the bar against litigation of claims not presented in a prior Thompson, 523 U.S. application.'" 538, Id. (quoting Calderon v. 553 (1998)). The Supreme Court has instructed that when, as here, a Rule 60(b) motion "seeks to revisit the federal court's denial on the merits of a claim for relief[, the Rule 60(b) treated as petition." 545 U.S. the Motion a 524, file 534 to the Court has to successive habeas the (2005). Vacate not as a for want of jurisdiction. Gonzalez should be v. Crosby, The Clerk will be directed to successive § 2254 received authorization successive motion] petition, the 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." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A petitioner satisfies this requirement only when "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, should have been issues presented for that matter, resolved were proceed further.'" fails to a different ^adequate to manner deserve the petition or that encouragement the to Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Williams in agree that) Estelle, meet 463 U.S. this 880, standard. 893 n.4 (1983)). A certificate of the of appealability will therefore be denied. The Clerk is directed to send a copy Memorandum Opinion to Williams and counsel of record. /a/ Robert E. jtU Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date : fy//*! ¢}
]]>
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.
