Hunt v. Commonwealth of Virginia

E.D. Virginia

Hunt v. Commonwealth of Virginia

DecidedDecember 22, 2023

Docket3:23-cv-00774

StatusUnknown

This text of Hunt v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Hunt v. Commonwealth of Virginia) 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

Hunt v. Commonwealth of Virginia, (E.D. Va. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division FLOYD O. HUNT, JR., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Vv. ) Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-774-HEH ) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, _) ) Respondent. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Action Without Prejudice) Petitioner Floyd O. Hunt, Jr. (“Petitioner”), a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, submitted a “Motion for New Trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33” that

appears to challenge his state conviction. (ECF No. | (capitalization corrected).)! Given the content of this document, the Court found it appropriate to give Petitioner the opportunity to pursue this action as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Mem. Order at 1-2); see also Rivenbark v. Virginia, 305 F. App’x 144, 145 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on November 22, 2023, the Court directed Petitioner, within twenty (20) days of the date of entry thereof, to complete and return the standardized form for filing a § 2254 petition as required by Eastern District of Virginia Local Civil Rule 83.4(A). (Mem. Order at 2.)

' By Memorandum Order entered on November 22, 2023, the Court explained: “The Court notes that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not apply to state criminal proceedings. See Fed. R. Crim. P 1(a)(1) (‘These rules govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in the United States district courts; the United States court of appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States.”) Therefore, Rule 33 would not provide Petitioner with a means to challenge his state conviction in this Court.” (ECF No. 3, at 1 n.1.)

More than twenty (20) days have elapsed, and Petitioner has not completed and returned the standardized form or otherwise responded to the Court’s Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

MM Henry E. Hudson Senior United States District Judge Date: Dec 22, 2023 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 FLOYD O. HUNT, JR., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Vv. ) Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-774-HEH ) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, _) ) Respondent. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Action Without Prejudice) Petitioner Floyd O. Hunt, Jr. (“Petitioner”), a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, submitted a “Motion for New Trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33” that

appears to challenge his state conviction. (ECF No. | (capitalization corrected).)! Given the content of this document, the Court found it appropriate to give Petitioner the opportunity to pursue this action as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Mem. Order at 1-2); see also Rivenbark v. Virginia, 305 F. App’x 144, 145 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on November 22, 2023, the Court directed Petitioner, within twenty (20) days of the date of entry thereof, to complete and return the standardized form for filing a § 2254 petition as required by Eastern District of Virginia Local Civil Rule 83.4(A). (Mem. Order at 2.)

' By Memorandum Order entered on November 22, 2023, the Court explained: “The Court notes that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not apply to state criminal proceedings. See Fed. R. Crim. P 1(a)(1) (‘These rules govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in the United States district courts; the United States court of appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States.”) Therefore, Rule 33 would not provide Petitioner with a means to challenge his state conviction in this Court.” (ECF No. 3, at 1 n.1.)

More than twenty (20) days have elapsed, and Petitioner has not completed and returned the standardized form or otherwise responded to the Court’s Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

MM Henry E. Hudson Senior United States District Judge Date: Dec 22, 2023 Richmond, Virginia

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hunt v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-commonwealth-of-virginia-vaed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack