Court Opinion

ID: 9882033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:00:52.277215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:37.322486
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6560      Doc: 8        Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6560

        RICHIE LEO WILLIAMS,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, VA Dept of Corr,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-01057-CMH-JFA)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Richie Leo Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6560      Doc: 8         Filed: 10/03/2023       Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Richie Leo Williams appeals the district court’s orders dismissing, after a review

        pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Williams’ hybrid complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and denying Williams’ motion for a certificate of

        appealability. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

               To the extent Williams’ complaint sought relief under § 2254, the district court

        dismissed the complaint as a successive and unauthorized § 2254 petition. Williams may

        not challenge the district court’s denial of habeas relief unless a circuit judge or justice

        issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of

        appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

        right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural

        grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is

        debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional

        right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529

        U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

        Williams has not made the requisite showing.            We therefore deny a certificate of

        appealability as to Williams’ habeas claims and dismiss this appeal in part.

               To the extent Williams challenges the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 claims,

        we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm in part.

        Williams v. Clarke, No. 1:22-cv-01057-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 26, 2023 & entered

        Apr. 27, 2023; filed May 25, 2023 & entered May 26, 2023). We dispense with oral

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6560      Doc: 8        Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

        before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                            DISMISSED IN PART,
                                                                            AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                    3