Richie Leo Williams v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, VA Dept of Corr

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6560
RICHIE LEO WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, VA Dept of Corr,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-01057-CMH-JFA)
Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Richie Leo Williams appeals the district court’s orders dismissing, after a review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Williams’ hybrid complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and denying Williams’ motion for a certificate of
appealability. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
To the extent Williams’ complaint sought relief under § 2254, the district court
dismissed the complaint as a successive and unauthorized § 2254 petition. Williams may
not challenge the district court’s denial of habeas relief unless a circuit judge or justice
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, 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
Williams has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of
appealability as to Williams’ habeas claims and dismiss this appeal in part.
To the extent Williams challenges the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 claims,
we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm in part.
Williams v. Clarke, No. 1:22-cv-01057-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 26, 2023 & entered
Apr. 27, 2023; filed May 25, 2023 & entered May 26, 2023). We dispense with oral

-- 2 of 3 --

3
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --