Smith v. Pearson, No. 3:2014cv00346 - Document 5 (E.D. Va. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 7/31/2014. Copies as DIRECTED to Petitioner.(cmcc, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COUR1 RICHMOND. VA RALPH M. SMITH, Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:14CV346 V. EDDIE PEARSON, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. By Memorandum Order entered on June 30,2014, the Court directed Petitioner, within eleven (11) days of the date of entry thereof, to pay the $5.00 filing fee or explain any special circumstances that would warrant excusing payment of the filing fee. The Court warned Petitioner it would dismiss the action if Petitioner did not pay the filing fee or explain any special circumstances that would warrant excusing payment of the filing fee. More than eleven (11) days have elapsed since the entry of the June 30, 2014 Memorandum Order and Petitioner has not responded.1 Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of 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 only when "reasonable jurists could On July 15,2014, the Court received a letter in another pending civil action in which Petitioner asks the Court to debit $5.00 from his inmate account. See Letter at 1, Smith v. Pearson, No. 3:14CV348 (E.D Va. July 15, 2014) (ECF No. 5.) To the extent Petitioner intended the letter to be filed in the instant case, as explained in the May 28, 2014 Order that conditionally filed his petition, Petitioner bears the responsibility for accumulating and submitting full payment.

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.