Summary
This Final Order from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia grants the respondent’s motion to dismiss a pro se habeas corpus petition filed by an incarcerated petitioner. The petitioner challenged Virginia’s statutory scheme for earned sentence credits on constitutional grounds, including equal protection, due process, ex post facto, and cruel and unusual punishment clauses. After reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation without objections, the court adopted the findings, dismissed the petition with prejudice, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Did Ortiz make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right sufficient to obtain a certificate of appealability and survive a motion to dismiss under 28 U.S.C. §2254?
Holdings
- Ortiz failed to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right; therefore, the petition is dismissed with prejudice and no certificate of appealability is issued.
Key quotations
“Ortiz has failed to demonstrate “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” and, therefore, the Court declines to issue any certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003).” (at 1)
Factual background
Ortiz, a Virginia inmate, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that Virginia's earned‑sentence‑credit amendments violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Ex Post Facto Clause, and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Respondent moved to dismiss and the magistrate recommended dismissal.
Procedural history
Petitioner filed pro se habeas petition on May 17, 2024; respondent moved to dismiss; magistrate recommended dismissal; court adopted recommendation and dismissed petition.