Dixon v. Director of Department of Corrections

E.D. Virginia

Dixon v. Director of Department of Corrections

DecidedMarch 19, 2021

Docket3:21-cv-00114

StatusUnknown

This text of Dixon v. Director of Department of Corrections (Dixon v. Director of Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dixon v. Director of Department of Corrections, (E.D. Va. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MARCUS LESHAWN DIXON, ) Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:21CV114-HEH DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ) Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Successive § 2254 Petition) Petitioner, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions in the Circuit Court of the County of Northampton for first degree murder, breaking and entering, robbery, and three counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. The Court previously has denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition filed by Petitioner challenging these convictions. See Dixon v. Clark, No. 3:12CV429, 2013 WL 4880465, at *1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2013). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 restricted the jurisdiction of the district courts to hear second or successive applications for federal habeas corpus relief by prisoners attacking the validity of their convictions and sentences by establishing a “gatekeeping mechanism.” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, “[b]efore a second or successive application permitted by this 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 consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The Court has not received authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to file the present § 2254 petition. Therefore, the action will be dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. A certificate of appealability will be denied. An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/ AM Henry E. Hudson Date: WWorch \4. 2021 Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MARCUS LESHAWN DIXON, ) Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:21CV114-HEH DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ) Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Successive § 2254 Petition) Petitioner, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions in the Circuit Court of the County of Northampton for first degree murder, breaking and entering, robbery, and three counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. The Court previously has denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition filed by Petitioner challenging these convictions. See Dixon v. Clark, No. 3:12CV429, 2013 WL 4880465, at *1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2013). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 restricted the jurisdiction of the district courts to hear second or successive applications for federal habeas corpus relief by prisoners attacking the validity of their convictions and sentences by establishing a “gatekeeping mechanism.” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, “[b]efore a second or successive application permitted by this 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 consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The Court has not received authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to file the present § 2254 petition. Therefore, the action will be dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. A certificate of appealability will be denied. An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/ AM Henry E. Hudson Date: WWorch \4. 2021 Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dixon v. Director of Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-director-of-department-of-corrections-vaed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack