Supreme-El v. Director, Dept. of Corr., No. 3:2014cv00302 - Document 12 (E.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 7/25/14. Copy sent: Yes (tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division METAPHYZIC EL-ECTROMAGNETIC SUPREME-EL, Petitioner, Civil Action No. v. DIRECTOR, DEPT. 3:14CV302 OF CORR., Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION By the Memorandum Opinion and Order Court petition § 2254 dismissed for a Metaphyzic writ of habeas entered on June El-ectromagnetic corpus for failing to complete and pursuant 30, 2014, Supreme-El's to 28 U.S.C. return an in forma pauperis affidavit or to pay the $5.00 filing fee. On July 11, 2014, Reconsideration pursuant 59(e). 59(e) ("Rule Supreme-El to Federal Motion," ECF filed Rule No. a of 9.) Motion Civil The for Procedure United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recognizes three grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): change in available prevent controlling law; (2) to at to correct trial; manifest or (3) injustice." 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993) Co., 771 "(1) to accommodate an intervening F. Supp. 1406, account a Hutchinson for new evidence not clear error v. of Staton, law 994 or F.2d (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers 1419 (D. Md. 1991); Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., Supreme-El Motion 130 F.R.D. provides no states that but prison account to (capitalization two new claims 625, argument he 626 in "has (S.D. support now of to his his withdrew satisfy the filing fee." corrected).) Miss. Supreme-El 1990)). Rule funds from (Rule 59(e) also dismissed petition. 59(e) his Mot. attempts 2 add fails Supreme-El to to demonstrate a clear error of law or any other basis for granting relief (ECF under No. Rule will 9) 59(e). be Accordingly, denied. The the Clerk Rule will 59(e) be Motion directed to return $5.00 to Supreme-El. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability rC0A") . 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA will not issue unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional requirement is right." satisfied debate whether should have issues presented (or, been for 28 only that resolved, were proceed further.'" U.S.C. when a to McDaniel, 463 U.S. Supreme-El this to satisfy the manner or standard. certificate of appealability will be denied. could petition that encouragement 529 U.S. 880, This jurists that) deserve (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, fails agree different ^adequate Slack v. "reasonable matter, in § 2253(c)(2). 893 473, 484 & n.4 the to (2000) (1983)). Accordingly, a The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Supreme-El. /,/ Robert E. tlzfi Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
