Background
Said Abdi Fooley filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Eastern District of Virginia. The district court dismissed the motion as successive and unauthorized.
Fooley, proceeding pro se, appealed. Because the district court’s order was not appealable without a certificate of appealability, the Fourth Circuit considered whether he had made the showing required for such a certificate.
The Court’s Holding
In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. When a district court denies relief on procedural grounds, a prisoner must show both that the procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion presents a debatable claim that a constitutional right was denied.
After independently reviewing the record, the court concluded that Fooley had not made the required showing. It therefore dismissed the appeal without oral argument, finding that argument would not aid the decisional process.
Key Takeaways
- A federal prisoner may not appeal the dismissal of a § 2255 motion without a certificate of appealability.
- Following a procedural dismissal, the prisoner must show that both the procedural ruling and the underlying constitutional claim are debatable.
- The Fourth Circuit concluded that Fooley failed to satisfy that two-part standard and dismissed his appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the procedural barrier facing federal prisoners who file successive § 2255 motions without authorization. It also confirms that a certificate of appealability requires a threshold showing as to both the procedural ruling and the asserted constitutional claim when relief was denied on procedural grounds.
Because the opinion is unpublished, it is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.