Filed: May 09, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6104 JARRETT D. HOLDEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VA. D.O.C., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-01591-TSE-TRJ) Submitted: April 23, 2014 Decided: May 9, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6104 JARRETT D. HOLDEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VA. D.O.C., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-01591-TSE-TRJ) Submitted: April 23, 2014 Decided: May 9, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6104
JARRETT D. HOLDEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VA. D.O.C.,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-01591-TSE-TRJ)
Submitted: April 23, 2014 Decided: May 9, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jarrett D. Holden, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jarrett D. Holden seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as successive his petition filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012), in which he claimed that his sentence of
mandatory life without parole is unconstitutional following the
Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama,
132 S. Ct. 2455,
2460, 2469 (2012).
We granted Holden’s motion for authorization to pursue
this claim in the district court on June 16, 2013. In re:
Holden, No. 13-264 (4th Cir. June 19, 2013) (unpublished order).
Holden subsequently filed a successive § 2254 petition in the
district court, which the district court dismissed without
prejudice for failure to exhaust. The district court’s order
clearly stated that “Petitioner may resubmit his claims to [the
district court] after he has exhausted them in the Supreme Court
of Virginia.” Holden v. Clarke, No. 1:13-cv-00897-TSE-TRJ (E.D.
Va. Sept. 20, 2013).
The Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed Holden’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus on November 7, 2013, and
Holden refiled his § 2254 claim in the district court on
December 27, 2013. The district court dismissed Holden’s
petition as an unauthorized, successive petition, and
erroneously informed Holden that he needed to seek authorization
from this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2012).
2
Because we have already granted Holden the requisite
authorization under § 2244, we find that the district court’s
procedural ruling was in error. We therefore grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, grant a certificate of appealability,
vacate the district court’s order, and remand with instructions
for the district court to consider Holden’s petition. In so
doing, we express no opinion as to the procedural or substantive
merits of Holden’s claims. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3