Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Grooms v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Robert L. Grooms, Jr. sought to appeal a district court's denial of relief on his complaint styled as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The Court of Appeals found that the district court properly construed Grooms' claims as habeas claims that should have been presented in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Additionally, because Grooms had previously filed § 2254 petitions raising the same or similar claims, and the Court of Appeals had denied his application to file a successive § 2254 petition, the action was properly dismissed as successive. The Court of Appeals therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Grooms

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-09-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6805

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Robert L. Grooms, Jr. sought to appeal a district court's denial of relief on his complaint styled as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The Court of Appeals found that the district court properly construed Grooms' claims as habeas claims that should have been presented in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Additionally, because Grooms had previously filed § 2254 petitions raising the same or similar claims, and the Court of Appeals had denied his application to file a successive § 2254 petition, the action was properly dismissed as successive. The Court of Appeals therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Grooms

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views2 pages

    Grooms v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Robert L. Grooms, Jr. sought to appeal a district court's denial of relief on his complaint styled as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The Court of Appeals found that the district court properly construed Grooms' claims as habeas claims that should have been presented in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Additionally, because Grooms had previously filed § 2254 petitions raising the same or similar claims, and the Court of Appeals had denied his application to file a successive § 2254 petition, the action was properly dismissed as successive. The Court of Appeals therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Grooms

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-6805

    ROBERT L. GROOMS, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Director of
    Corrections; DORIS L. EWING, Court and Legal
    Office Manager,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (7:07-cv-00228-jlk)

    Submitted:

    August 30, 2007

    Decided:

    September 10, 2007

    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert L. Grooms, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert L. Grooms, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying without prejudice relief on his complaint
    styled as an action arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000).

    Because

    the complaint raised habeas claims, we find the district court


    properly construed the claims as more appropriately presented in a
    28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.

    Further, because Grooms has

    filed previous 2254 petitions raising the same or similar claims,


    and this court has denied his application to file a successive
    2254 petition under 28 U.S.C. 2244 (2000), the action was
    properly

    dismissed

    as

    successive.

    Accordingly,

    certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    we

    deny

    We dispense

    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like