Curtis v. Chesterfield County Commonwealth
513 F. App'x 292
4th Cir.2013Background
- Derek Curtis seeks review of a district court order dismissing his § 2254 petition as impermissibly successive.
- The district court denied relief on procedural grounds, and Curtis sought appellate review with a certificate of appealability.
- Curtis had two grand larceny convictions in Virginia courts: Petersburg and Chesterfield County, challenging different judgments.
- Rule 2(e) requires separate petitions for judgments from different state courts; the petitions here concern different judgments.
- The court noted the petitions are not a simple direct attack on the same conviction, thus not strictly 'second' petitions.
- The panel vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings, granting COA and in forma pauperis status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Curtis's petition successive? | Curtis argues different judgments negate succession | Defendant argues same overall claims render it successive | Not successive; separate judgments permit independent petition |
| Should a certificate of appealability issue? | Curtis showed debatable claims of constitutional violation | District court erred in ruling without COA necessity | COA granted; appealable under § 2253(c) |
| Did the district court procedurally misapprehend the petition? | Petition plausibly states a constitutional claim | Dismissal appropriate on preliminary review | Procedural ruling incorrect; merits further review on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 F.3d 473 (Supreme Court 2000) (requires debatable claims to grant a COA when denial is on procedural grounds)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court 2003) (imposes standard for debatable claims for COA)
- Vasquez v. Parrott, 318 F.3d 387 (2d Cir. 2003) (defines 'successive' petition in habeas context)
- Roberts v. Dretke, 356 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2004) (standard for evaluating a federal habeas claim on review)
- Hardemon v. Quarterman, 516 F.3d 272 (5th Cir. 2008) (discusses separate petitions for judgments from multiple state courts)