Ward v. Pearson, No. 3:2015cv00015 - Document 3 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., on 04/14/2015. (ccol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ward v. Pearson Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division JULIUS LEE WARD, Petitioner, V. Civil Action No. 3:15CV15 EDDIE LEE PEARSON, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By Memorandum Order entered on February 27, 2015, the Court directed Petitioner to complete and return, within fifteen (15) days of the date of entry thereof, an affidavit in support of his request to proceed informa pauperis or pay the $5.00 filing fee. More than fifteen (15) days have passed and Petitioner has not returned the required informa pauperis affidavit. Petitioner has failed to pay the assessed fee or adequately explain any special circumstances warranting excuse from payment. Accordingly, the petition 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 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 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
