Summary
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismisses Marcus Albinus Joseph’s habeas petition without prejudice. The court construes the petition as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and concludes that it is an unauthorized successive petition because Joseph did not obtain appellate authorization. The court denies a certificate of appealability.
Holdings
- Because the petition challenged Petitioner's state-court conviction and there was no immigration proceeding or detainer basis supporting relief under § 2241, the Court construed the petition as one brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- The petition was barred as a successive habeas petition because Petitioner had not first obtained authorization from the Court of Appeals to file it.
- A certificate of appealability was denied because Petitioner did not make the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Questions Presented
- Whether the petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be construed as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- Whether the petition should be dismissed as an unauthorized successive habeas petition because Petitioner had not obtained authorization from the Court of Appeals.
- Whether Petitioner was entitled to a certificate of appealability.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (7)
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976)(followed)
- Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972)(followed)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)(followed)
- Weller v. Dep't of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990)(followed)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)(followed)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)(followed)
- Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…