Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20161005_0001089.EVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-03-18 05:47:51
Document Index: 579159047

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2255', '§ 2254', '§ 2254']

SHERMAN L. SHELTON, JR., Petitioner,
Petitioner, Sherman L. Shelton, Jr., a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this action which he titled, "MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, AND DECLARE NULL AND VOID, THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION THAT IS VOID AB INITIO. 'INDEPENDENT ACTION'" (hereinafter, "Motion to Vacate."). The matter is before the Court for evaluation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.[1] As explained below, the Motion to Vacate will be dismissed because it is a successive, unauthorized § 2254 petition.
Shelton was convicted in the Circuit Court for the County of Spotsylvania for robbery and threatening to burn or bomb a building. Shelton v. Dir. of Virginia Dep't of Corr., No. 3:08CV70, 2008 WL 4361051, at *1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 24, 2008). On September 24, 2008, this Court denied a § 2254 petition filed by Shelton challenging the above convictions. Id. at *1, *7. In his present Motion to Vacate, Shelton once again attempts to challenge his Spotsylvania convictions, this time invoking the Court's jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) & (d) . (Mot. Vacate 2.)
Id. at 207 (citations omitted). Here, Shelton's Motion to Vacate raises challenges to his Spotsylvania convictions, rather than any defects in his federal habeas proceedings. Shelton argues that numerous errors occurred during his state trial. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32 (2005) (construing a motion as a successive habeas corpus application if it seeks vindication of a claim for relief from the criminal judgment, regardless of the title on the motion) .[2] Accordingly, the Court must treat the Motion to Vacate as successive § 2254 petition. United States v. Merica, Nos. 5:04CR00015, 5:11CV80375, 2011 WL 6325881, at *1 (W.D. Va. Dec. 16, 2011) (treating independent action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(d) as a successive § 2255 motion). The Court has not received authorization from the Fourth Circuit to file the present § 2254 petition. Therefore, the action will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Court denies a certificate of appealability.
[1] According to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases:
Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in U.S. District Courts, ...