Opinion

Brown v. United States

Court
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Filed
Jun 30, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 37.2%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

MONTA MARKIES BROWN,

Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 3:25CV295

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. By Memorandum Order entered on April 29, 2025, (ECF. No. 5) the Court informed

Petitioner that in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, all pro se

petitions for writs of habeas corpora must be filed on a set of standardized forms. See E.D. Va.

Loc. Civ. R. 83.4(A). The Court mailed Petitioner the standardized form for filing a § 2254

petition and directed him to complete and return the form to the Court within thirty (30) days of

the date of entry thereof. The Court warned Petitioner that the failure to complete and return the

form in a timely manner would result in dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

On June 2, 2025, the April 29, 2025 Memorandum Order was returned to the Court and

the Court remailed it to Petitioner at an appropriate address. Since the date, Petitioner has not

completed and returned the standardized form. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge

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

will not issue unless a prisoner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when “reasonable jurists could

debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a

different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to

proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,

463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). No law or evidence suggests that Petitioner is entitled to further

consideration in this matter. A certificate of appealability will be DENIED.

An appropriate Final Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

United States District Judge

Date: LO 130 l2Q0a5

Richmond, Virginia

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.