Hairston v. Brunswick Womens Reception Pre-Release Center, No. 7:2014cv00207 - Document 5 (W.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 6/23/2014. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION STEVA M. HAIRSTON, Petitioner, v. BRUNSWICK RECEPTION PRE-RELEASE CENTER, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Case No. 7:14cv00207 MEMORANDUM OPINION By: Michael F. Urbanski United States District Judge Steva M. Hairston, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254, challenging her 2011 conviction in the Pittsylvania Circuit Court for a third offense of larceny. In her federal habeas petition, Hairston alleges that upon being sentenced on November 30, 2011, she was granted a furlough for surgery [and] health issues. Hairston states that her attorney filed a motion for reconsideration on February 12, 2012, but she does not indicate to what the motion was requesting reconsideration. Hairston alleges that in June 2012, she was notified that her attorney had become a judge. She states that she moved for substitution of counsel, which apparently never happened. Hairston alleges she had a court date in August 2012, but that she never heard. It is unclear what she did not hear. Hairston argues that she has a right to attorney, but that no substitution was made after her attorney became a judge. Upon initial review of Hairston s pleading, the court conditionally filed the petition and advised Hairston that it could not discern a cognizable federal habeas claim from the allegations in her petition. The court directed Hairston to submit a more definite statement of her claims within ten days. Hairston did not respond to this portion of the court s conditional filing order. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must dismiss a petition if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief . . . . Because Hairston alleges no cognizable federal habeas claim, the court finds that it plainly appears that she is not entitled to habeas relief.1 Accordingly, the court dismisses this action without prejudice to Hairston s opportunity to refile her petition. Entered: June 23, 2014 /s/ Michael F. Urbanski Michael F. Urbanski United States District Judge 1 Moreover, it appears from state court records found online that Hairston s direct appeal is currently pending in the Court of Appeals of Virginia. Hairston v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Case No. 0674-14-3 (Va. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2014) (brief in opposition received June 12, 2014). 2
]]>
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.
