Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mallory v. Robinson, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Calvin Mallory's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had dismissed the petition without prejudice because Mallory did not file it on the proper court form and had violated a pre-filing injunction. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Mallory did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify issuing a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Mallory's appeal and denied his related motions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-05-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-8028

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Calvin Mallory's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had dismissed the petition without prejudice because Mallory did not file it on the proper court form and had violated a pre-filing injunction. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Mallory did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify issuing a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Mallory's appeal and denied his related motions.

    Copyright:

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

    Mallory v. Robinson, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Calvin Mallory's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had dismissed the petition without prejudice because Mallory did not file it on the proper court form and had violated a pre-filing injunction. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Mallory did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify issuing a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Mallory's appeal and denied his related motions.

    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. 04-8028

    CALVIN R. MALLORY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    A. T. ROBINSON, Supt.; POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL
    CENTER,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-04-829-3)

    Submitted:

    April 28, 2005

    Decided:

    May 5, 2005

    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Calvin R. Mallory, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Calvin R. Mallory seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254
    (2000).

    The

    district

    court

    dismissed

    the

    petition

    without

    prejudice because the action was not filed on the proper form in
    violation of the courts October 4, 2002, pre-filing injunction.
    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues a certificate of appealability.
    (2000).

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)

    A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).
    demonstrating
    constitutional

    that

    A prisoner satisfies this standard by

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    28

    jurists

    debatable

    would

    and

    that

    find
    any

    that

    his

    dispositive

    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or


    wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
    676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
    record

    and

    showing.

    conclude

    that

    We have independently reviewed the


    Mallory

    has

    not

    made

    the

    requisite

    Accordingly, we deny Mallorys motions to proceed in

    forma pauperis, for production of documents, and appointment of


    counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the
    appeal. 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