Edwards v. Clark

E.D. Virginia

Edwards v. Clark

DecidedDecember 2, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-00882

StatusUnknown

This text of Edwards v. Clark (Edwards v. Clark) 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

Edwards v. Clark, (E.D. Va. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division TAUREAN J. EDWARDS, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:20CV882 HAROLD CLARK, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Taurean J. Edwards has submitted a motion asking for an extension of time in which to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Federal Courts, however, lack jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of a § 2254 petition until it is actually filed. Gregory v. Bassett, No. 3:07¢v790, 2009 WL 455267, at *2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 23, 2009) (citations omitted); see United States v. White, 257 F. App’x 608, 609 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding that no case or controversy existed before § 2255 motion was actually filed (citing United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 2000))). Because a § 2254 petition did not accompany Edwards’s motion for an extension of time and because the motion did not contain any cognizable claims for habeas relief, Edwards’ motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 1) will be DENIED. See Ramirez v. United States, 461 F. Supp. 2d 439, 440- 41 (E.D. Va. 2006) (citations omitted). This action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward to Edwards the form for filing a petition under 28 USS.C, § 2254. Any § 2254 petition that Edwards files must conform to the rules governing such motions and be sworn to under the penalty of perjury. See Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings for the U.S. District Courts, Rule 2(c). Edwards also is advised that § 2254 petitions are subject

to a one-year statute of limitations and a restriction against second or successive petitions. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3), (d). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability (“COA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A COA 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 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 Edwards is entitled to further consideration in this matter. A certificate of appealability will be DENIED. An appropriate Order shall issue.

Isf (2 John A, Gibney, Jr. □ 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 TAUREAN J. EDWARDS, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:20CV882 HAROLD CLARK, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Taurean J. Edwards has submitted a motion asking for an extension of time in which to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Federal Courts, however, lack jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of a § 2254 petition until it is actually filed. Gregory v. Bassett, No. 3:07¢v790, 2009 WL 455267, at *2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 23, 2009) (citations omitted); see United States v. White, 257 F. App’x 608, 609 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding that no case or controversy existed before § 2255 motion was actually filed (citing United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 2000))). Because a § 2254 petition did not accompany Edwards’s motion for an extension of time and because the motion did not contain any cognizable claims for habeas relief, Edwards’ motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 1) will be DENIED. See Ramirez v. United States, 461 F. Supp. 2d 439, 440- 41 (E.D. Va. 2006) (citations omitted). This action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward to Edwards the form for filing a petition under 28 USS.C, § 2254. Any § 2254 petition that Edwards files must conform to the rules governing such motions and be sworn to under the penalty of perjury. See Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings for the U.S. District Courts, Rule 2(c). Edwards also is advised that § 2254 petitions are subject

to a one-year statute of limitations and a restriction against second or successive petitions. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3), (d). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability (“COA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A COA 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 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 Edwards is entitled to further consideration in this matter. A certificate of appealability will be DENIED. An appropriate Order shall issue.

Isf (2 John A, Gibney, Jr. □ Richmond, Virginia

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Edwards v. Clark, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-clark-vaed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack