Corbett v. Brooks
Summary of the case Corbett v. Brooks
Gregory Scott Corbett appealed the district court's decision to construe his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which was dismissed. The court denied a certificate of appealability, concluding that Corbett did not demonstrate that the district court's procedural ruling was wrong or debatable.
Key Issues of the case Corbett v. Brooks
- Whether the district court correctly construed Corbett's § 2241 petition as a successive § 2255 motion
- Whether a certificate of appealability should be issued
Key Facts of the case Corbett v. Brooks
- Corbett filed a § 2241 petition
- The district court construed it as a successive § 2255 motion and dismissed it
Decision of the case Corbett v. Brooks
Dismissed
Opinions
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6360
GREGORY SCOTT CORBETT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-514-3)
Submitted: July 30, 2004 Decided: August 23, 2004
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Scott Corbett, Appellant Pro Se. Robert P. McIntosh, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Gregory Scott Corbett seeks to appeal the district
court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition as a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing Corbett’s
action. Because the district court properly construed Corbett’s
action as a successive § 2255 motion, he may not appeal unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363,
374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004) (finding certificate of appealability
required even where district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction). A certificate of appealability will not issue
absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Corbett has not shown that the district court’s procedural
ruling that his § 2255 motion was successive was wrong or
debatable. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
- 2 - facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -