Abdul-Sabur v. Clarke, No. 7:2015cv00232 - Document 2 (W.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 6/15/2015. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Abdul-Sabur v. Clarke Doc. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION WAKEEL ABDUL-SABUR, Petitioner, Civil Action No. 7:15 -cv-00232 v. MEMORANDUM OPINION HAROLD CLARKE, Respondent. By: Hon. Michael F. Urbanski United States District Judge Wakeel Abdul-Sabur, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his convictions entered by the Circuit Court for Albemarle County April 1999 for credit card theft and forgery. Court records indicate that Petitioner previously filed a § 2254 petition about the same convictions in Abdul-Sabur v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Civil Action No. 7:08-cv-00230 (W.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2008). Thus, Petitioner’s current petition is a subsequent one, falling under the prohibition in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) against a second or successive petition. Pursuant to this section, a federal district court may consider a second or successive § 2254 petition only upon specific certification from a United States Court of Appeals that claims in the subsequent petition meet certain criteria. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Petitioner does not describe the alleged newly-discovered evidence beyond mere labels and conclusions, and he has not submitted any evidence that he has obtained certification by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. See, e.g., In re Williams, 444 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the court dismisses the petition without prejudice as successive. Based upon the finding that Petitioner has not made the requisite substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a certificate of appealability is denied. Entered: June 15, 2015 /s/ Michael F. Urbanski Michael F. Urbanski United States District Judge 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.
