Hawthorne v. Warden Kiser et. al, No. 3:2017cv00541 - Document 7 (E.D. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. SEE OPINION for complete details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 11/21/2017. Copy mailed to Petitioner.(ccol, )
Download PDF
Hawthorne v. Warden Kiser et. al Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF Richmond Division DERRICK JEROME HAWTHORNE, Petitioner, v. WARDEN KISER, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) l - - - - - - . NOV 2 I 20!7 CLERK, U.S. Di.STM1CT COURT RICHMOND VA Civil Action No. 3: l 7CV541-HEH MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing 28 U.S.C § 2254 Petition Without Prejudice) Petitioner, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding prose, submitted a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. On October 3, 2017, the Court entered a Memorandum Order directing Petitioner to pay the $5.00 filing fee, or explain any special circumstances that would warrant excusing payment of the filing fee, within eleven ( 11) days of the date of entry thereof. ("Memorandum Order," ECF No. 6.) Further, the Court warned Petitioner that failure to do so would result in dismissal. More than eleven ( 11) days have elapsed since the entry of the Memorandum Order, and Petitioner has not responded. 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)(l)(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 Dockets.Justia.com should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further."' Slackv. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). No law or evidence suggests that Petitioner is entitled to further consideration in this matter. The Court will deny a certificate of appealability. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Isl HENRY E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: No\l. 21 12017 Richmond, Virginia 2