Avent v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 3:2014cv00494 - Document 6 (E.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 11/25/2014. Copy mailed to Petitioner. (sbea, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Avent v. Commonwealth of Virginia Doc. 6 fp IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT • COURT 26 OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT QUINCY ERNEST AVENT, RICHMOND.VA Petitioner V, Civil No. 3:14CV494 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Quincy Ernest Avent, submitted a 28 U.S.C. a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, § 2254 petition. Avent states that he has a pending appeal with the Court of Appeals of Virginia. Pet. 3.) to his at (§ 2254 Avent has not filed an appeal or any other challenge state conviction to the Supreme Court 3-4.) Thus, the record fails to of Virginia. indicate that (Id. Avent has properly exhausted his state court remedies with respect to his claims. 24, (11) Accordingly, 2014, the Court by Memorandum Order entered on September directed Avent to days of the date of entry thereof, should not be dismissed court remedies. Accordingly, (ECF No. for 5.) lack of show cause within eleven why his § 2254 Petition exhaustion of his state Avent has not responded. Avent's § 2254 Petition and the action will be dismissed without prejudice because he has failed to demonstrate that he has exhausted his available state remedies or that Dockets.Justia.com exceptional circumstances warrant consideration of his petition at this juncture. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a (^^COA"). 28 judge issues a certificate of appealability 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 requirement is right." satisfied debate whether (or, should have issues presented been for were to that U.S.C. when a satisfy agree to McDaniel, 880, could the petition or that encouragement 529 U.S. 463 U.S. this manner deserve This jurists that) different ^adequate Estelle, § 2253(c)(2). ^'reasonable matter, in Slack v. (quoting Barefoot v. fails only resolved proceed further.'" Avent 28 893 standard. 473, 484 & n.4 the to (2000) (1983)). Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will be denied. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Avent and counsel of record. /s/ Robert E. Richmond, Virginia /At^ Payne Senior 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.
