Yo v. Nelson Smith

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7071
YO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
NELSON SMITH,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Chief District Judge. (3:24-cv-00161-MHL-MRC)
Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 30, 2025
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yo, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Yo, previously known as Mario Ballard, seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice Yo’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.* The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court
denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When, as here, the
district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that
the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim
of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012)
(citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Yo has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
* Yo initially filed the underlying petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The district
court redocketed the matter as brought pursuant to § 2254 because Yo, who is in custody
pursuant to a civil recommitment order stemming from a state criminal judgment,
challenged the validity of the recommitment order. Although contested by Yo, we discern
no error in the district court’s decision to construe his filing as a § 2254 petition. See
Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001) (explaining that detainees under an
involuntary civil commitment by a state court may challenge the order through federal
habeas corpus because they meet the “in custody” requirement of § 2254); see accord
Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2005) (providing that it is
“well established that detainees under an involuntary civil commitment scheme” such as a
sexually violent predator program may use § 2254 to challenge their term of confinement).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
appeal. 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.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --