Court Opinion

ID: 9367474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 21:00:45.80427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:00.413296
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6822     Doc: 15        Filed: 01/30/2023   Pg: 1 of 4

                                          UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 22-6822

        KENNETH H. NEWKIRK,

                           Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        DIRECTOR, Dept. of Corrections,

                           Respondent - Appellee.

                                             No. 22-7253

        KENNETH H. NEWKIRK,

                           Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        DIRECTOR, Dept. of Corrections,

                           Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-00369-HEH-EWH)

        Submitted: January 6, 2023                                 Decided: January 30, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6822      Doc: 15         Filed: 01/30/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kenneth H. Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6822         Doc: 15       Filed: 01/30/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               In No. 22-6822, Kenneth H. Newkirk appeals the district court’s order dismissing

        his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s prior

        order. A district court has the authority to dismiss an action for a party’s failure to comply

        with its orders, and we review a court’s decision to dismiss for failure to comply for an

        abuse of discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 620, 625-

        27 (4th Cir. 2019); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989). Here, after

        dismissing one of Newkirk’s prior § 2254 petitions for failure to exhaust his state court

        remedies, the district court directed Newkirk to include a statement on the front page of

        any future § 2254 petition stating that he has exhausted his state court remedies. And the

        court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Newkirk did not comply

        with the court’s order, and his assertion that he was not required to exhaust his state court

        remedies before filing his petition is without merit.        See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c).

        Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing

        Newkirk’s § 2254 petition and affirm the district court’s judgment. Newkirk v. Dir., Dep’t

        of Corr., No. 3:22-cv-00369-HEH-EWH (E.D. Va. June 21, 2022); see Ballard, 882 F.2d

        at 95-96 (holding that district court did not abuse discretion when it dismissed case for

        failure to comply with prior order after explicitly warning that dismissal would result from

        failure to comply).

               In No. 22-7253, Newkirk appeals the district court’s order denying his emergency

        motion for an appeal bond, home confinement, and an injunction. We have reviewed the

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6822      Doc: 15         Filed: 01/30/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

        Newkirk v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., No. 3:22-cv-00369-HEH-EWH (E.D. Va. Oct. 6, 2022).

               For both cases, we deny a certificate of appealability as unnecessary, see

        Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009); United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399-

        400 (4th Cir. 2015), and deny as moot Newkirk’s motions for bail or release pending appeal

        and his motion for an emergency hearing. We dispense with oral argument because the

        facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                    4