Arline v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 3:2013cv00498 - Document 9 (E.D. Va. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. The Clerk will be directed to treat the Rule 60(b) Motion 1 as a successive §2254 Petition. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 11/4/2013. (tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA: Richmond Division LEONARD H. ARLINE, ) Petitioner, j jf " ]j r-" |j j N0V 52013 ^ Cl Civil Action No. 3:13CV498-HEH v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition) By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on February 22, 2007, the Court denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition filed by Leonard H. Arline challenging his 2002 convictions in the Circuit Court for the City of Suffolk. Arline v. Kelly, No. 3:06-cv261-HEH (E.D. Va. Feb. 22, 2007), ECF No. 15-16. On July 30, 2013, the Court received from Arline a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) ("Rule 60(b) Motion," ECF No. 1). As explained below, the Rule 60(b) Motion must be treated as a successive, unauthorized § 2254 petition. 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." Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996). 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 "i
]]>
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.
