Frankie Miller, Jr. v. Harold Clarke
Frankie Miller, Jr. v. Harold Clarke
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6643
FRANKIE M. MILLER, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:20-cv-00505-MSD-DEM)
Submitted: November 18, 2021 Decided: November 19, 2021
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frankie M. Miller, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Frankie M. Miller, Jr., appeals the district court’s order construing his pleading,
which was captioned as a “Request for Chief Judge[’]s Review of Facts of Case,
Appointment of Investigators in Manner Deemed Appropriate by Chief Judge” as an
unauthorized, successive
28 U.S.C. § 2254petition and dismissing it on that basis. ∗ Our
review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Miller’s pleading
as a successive § 2254 petition over which it lacked jurisdiction because Miller failed to
obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); McRae, 793
F.3d at 397-400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 208(4th
Cir. 2003), we construe Miller’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to
file a second or successive § 2254 petition. Upon review, we conclude that Miller’s claims
do not meet the relevant standard. See
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). We therefore deny
authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
∗ A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a pleading as an unauthorized, successive habeas petition. United States v. McRae,
793 F.3d 392, 400(4th Cir. 2015).
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished