Anderson v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — ATHARRISONBURG va FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA october □□□□□□□ ROANOKE DIVISION LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLE By: s/J.Vasquez WILLIAM LEE ANDERSON, II, ) PEROT □□□ Petitioner, Case No. 7:25CV00433

OPINION COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, JUDGE JAMES P. JONES Respondent. William Lee Anderson, II, Pro Se Petitioner. The petitioner, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2009 convictions in Washington County Circuit Court for bank robbery and obstruction of justice. I find the petition to be successive and dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). In 2009, Anderson ran into a bank, shouted for employees to get down, grabbed money from an open drawer, and ran out. He pleaded guilty to the resulting criminal charges, and the trial court sentenced him to serve sixty years in prison with thirty years suspended. Anderson has filed several unsuccessful habeas actions in

state courts. The instant petition and subsequent submissions comprise three stacks of repetitive documents, some handwritten and titled as appendix or affidavit, while others are photocopies of medical records, court letters, orders, or transcripts, or

isolated pages from such documents. The submissions include random underlining and margin notes. Anderson argues that because he has served eighteen years in

prison, which exceeds “his entire max guidelines of 12.5 years,” I should order his immediate release from incarceration. Pet. Ex. 5, at 20, Dkt. No. 1-5. Even if I were able to decipher Anderson’s intended habeas claims and

supporting facts from among his many filings, I would be unable to address them on the merits. This court may consider a second or successive § 2254 petition motion only upon specific certification from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that the claims in the motion meet certain criteria. 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2244(b). Anderson previously filed a § 2254 petition concerning the same convictions and sentence. Anderson v. Dir. of Dep’t of Corr., No. 7:12CV00323 (W.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2012) (dismissing § 2254 petition as untimely filed), appeal

dismissed, 502 F. App’x 261 (4th Cir. 2012) (unpublished). Because the petitioner offers no indication that he has obtained certification from the court of appeals to file a second or successive § 2254 petition, I must dismiss his current action without prejudice.

A separate Final Order will be entered herewith. DATED: October 2, 2025

/s/ JAMES P. JONES Senior United States District Judge