# Brown v. United States

> District Court, E.D. Virginia · June 30, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11087130

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Virginia
- **Decided:** June 30, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11087130

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11087130. Public record. Not legal advice.