Godfrey v. Norfolk Circuit Court, No. 3:2018cv00416 - Document 5 (E.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 07/26/2018. Copy mailed to petitioner.(tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Godfrey v. Norfolk Circuit Court Doc. 5 IP 1 i u.. L E nl i JUL 28 2018 Jil IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND. VA RASHAD GODFREY, Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:18CV416 V. NORFOLK CIRCUIT COURT, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. By Memorandum Order entered on July 3,2018,the Court directed Petitioner to pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit an appropriate informa pauperis affidavit within fifteen(15)days ofthe date of entry thereof. Additionally, the Court informed Petitioner that in the United States District Court for the Eastem District of Virginia, all pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpora must be filed on a set of standardized forms. See E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 83.4(A). The Court mailed Petitioner the standardized form for filing a § 2254 petition and directed him to complete and return the form to the Court within eleven(11)days ofthe date of entry hereof. The Court warned Petitioner that the failure to complete and return the form in a timely manner would result in dismissal ofthe action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). More than fifteen(15)days have elapsed since the entry ofthe July 3,2018 Memorandum Order and Petitioner has not responded. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dockets.Justia.com An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless ajudge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue imless a prisoner makes"a substantial showing ofthe 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 proceed further.'" Slack v. 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. A certificate of appealability will be DENIED. An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion. M. Hanna United States District Judge Date: JUL 26 . Richmond, Virginia
]]>
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.
