IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:21-cv-00247-MR

EDDRICCO L. BROWN-BEY,1 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., ) ORDER ) Defendants. ) _______________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s pro se “Emergency Petition for Constitutional Rights Protected by the 5th and 8th [amendments] Articles to the Bill of Rights of [1791].” [Doc. 8]. The pro se Petitioner, who is presently incarcerated in the North Carolina Department of Safety, filed a an “Emergency Petition” in the instant case that was construed as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

. [Doc. 1]. On October 29, 2021, the Petition was dismissed without prejudice as an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition and this case was closed. [Docs. 3, 4]. He has filed a Notice of Appeal. [Doc. 8].

1 According to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety’s website, the Petitioner’s name is Eddricco L. Brown. See https://webapps.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do? method=view&offenderID=0700738&searchOffenderId=0700738&searchDOBRange=0 &listurl=pagelistoffendersearchresults&listpage=1 (last accessed Nov. 10, 2021); Fed. R. Evid. 201. The Petitioner has now filed the instant “Emergency Petition” in which he again challenges his incarceration, and asks the Court to vacate his

judgment and immediately release him from custody. [Doc. 8]. The “Emergency Petition” is construed as an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to § 2254.

The § 2254 Petition has already been dismissed and the Amended Petition does not establish that the Fourth Circuit has granted the Petitioner authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition. There is no active case or controversy before the Court, and the Amended Petition is

therefore dismissed. See e.g. Sevilla-Briones v. Hooks, No. 3:20-cv-00059- MR,

W.D.N.C. Nov. 10, 2020) (denying a motion to amend in a closed § 2254 case); Rudisill v. United States, No. 1:09CR262-

3-T,

, at * 1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 14, 2009) (in a § 2255 case, noting that “this Court is unaware of any authority allowing Petitioner to amend a closed case.”). Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.

(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003) (in order to

satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel,

, 484 (2000) (holding that when relief is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must establish both that the correctness of the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatably valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right). ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner's “Emergency Petition for Constitutional Rights Protected by the 5" and 8" [amendments] Articles to the Bill of Rights of [1791]” [Doc. 8] is construed as an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

and is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: November 18, 2021 Se ee Chief United States District Judge ES