Bearfield v. Joyner, No. 3:2016cv00344 - Document 4 (E.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 06/23/2016. Copy mailed to Petitioner. (walk, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bearfield v. Joyner Doc. 4 IL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division Jll 2 7 2016 MICHAEL LINK BEARFIELD, CLERK, U.S. DIS1RICT COURT RICHMOND VA Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:16CV344 v. CARLTON JOYNER, et al. , Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered May 11, 2016, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied as untimely a 28 U.S.C. 2254 Petition filed by § Michael Link Bearfield, challenging his 2013 convictions in the Wake County, North Carolina Superior Court. ECF No . 1- 8 , at 2 - 4 . } successive, On June 7, unauthorized challenging his 2013 28 2016, U.S.C. convictions in (ECF No. 1, at 1; this Court received a § 2254 from Bearfield the Wake County Superior Court. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 restricted the second successive or jurisdiction of the applications district for federal courts habeas to hear corpus relief by prisoners attacking the validity of their convictions and sentences Felker v. by Turpin, establishing 518 U.S. 651, a "'gatekeeping' 657 (1996}. mechanism." Specifically, "[b] efore a second or successive application permitted by this Dockets.Justia.com section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district § court to 2244 (b) (3) (A). consider the Because application. Bearfield has 28 11 u.s.c. obtained not authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to file a successive lacks § 2254 petition, jurisdiction to entertain the present Accordingly, jurisdiction. 2 the action will be § dismissed 2254 this Court petition. 1 for lack of A certificate of appealability will be denied. To the extent Bearfield intends to appeal the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, he must note his appeal with that court. 1 The Eastern District of Virginia is also not the appropriate jurisdiction to file a § 2254 petition challenging Wake County, North Carolina convictions. Because it is apparent from the record that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the successive § 2254 Petition, the Court nevertheless, dismisses it without transferring the action. 2 An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of 11 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. 2 8 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 proceed further.'" Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). Bearfield fails to satisfy this standard. 11 2 The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Bearfield. It is so ORDERED. /s/ Date: Richmond%7 Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge 3
]]>
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.
