Case Information
*1 Case 3:25-cv-00295-MHL-MRC Document 8 Filed 06/30/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 99
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division MONTA MARKIES BROWN, Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:25CV295 V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. By Memorandum Order entered on April 29,2025, (ECF. No. 5) the Court informed Petitioner that in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, all pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpora must be filed on a set of standardized forms. See E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 83.4(A). The Court mailed Petitioner the standardized form for filing a § 2254 petition and directed him to complete and return the form to the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of entry thereof. The Court warned Petitioner that the failure to complete and return the form in a timely manner would result in dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
On June 2, 2025, the April 29, 2025 Memorandum Order was returned to the Court and the Court remailed it to Petitioner at an appropriate address. Since the date. Petitioner has not completed and returned the standardized form. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
*2 Case 3:25-cv-00295-MHL-MRC Document 8 Filed 06/30/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 100 An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a prisoner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to Slack V. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, proceed further. [595] 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). No law or evidence suggests that Petitioner is entitled to further consideration in this matter. A certificate of appealability will be DENIED.
An appropriate Final Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion. M. Hannah I United States D’istr^fct Judge
Lp/30]^Cb?^
Date:
Richmond, Virginia [2]