Richard Leo Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6213
RICHARD LEO WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-00958-CMH-JFA)
Submitted: June 25, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019
Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richie Leo Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Richard Leo Williams, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen
v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because the district court
dismissed Williams’ petition for failure to comply with the court’s orders directing him to
file his petition on the appropriate standardized form, we conclude that the order
Williams seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th
Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-
67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny as
unnecessary Williams’ motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction.
In Goode, we remanded to the district court with instructions to allow amendment
of the complaint. 807 F.3d at 630. Here, however, the district court already has provided
Williams two opportunities to amend. Accordingly, we direct on remand that the district
court, in its discretion, either afford Williams another opportunity to file his petition on
the appropriate form* or dismiss the petition with prejudice, thereby rendering its
* Pursuant to the district court’s orders, Williams filed two amended § 2254
petitions using the correct standardized form. However, in concluding that Williams
failed to comply with its orders, the district court did not mention either of these standard
(Continued)

-- 2 of 3 --

3
dismissal order a final, appealable judgment. 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 AND REMANDED
form petitions. Thus, we cannot discern whether the court found these filings insufficient
or simply overlooked them.

-- 3 of 3 --