UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6137
WARREN CHASE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-03009-CCB)
Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 21, 2010
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Warren Chase filed a hybrid complaint in the district
court seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) and seeking
an order transferring him to a different institution. That part
of the order dismissing his § 2254 petition as successive and
without authorization from this court is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363,
369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2006). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude Chase has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss in part the appeal.
Additionally, we construe Chase’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. United States v. Winestock,
2
340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain
authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner
must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of
constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by
the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly
discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due
diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no
reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of
the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2006). Chase’s claims do
not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny
authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition.
Insofar as Chase sought an order compelling the
Respondents to transfer him to another institution, we note “an
inmate has no justifiable expectation that he will be
incarcerated in any particular prison within a State[.”] Olim
v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983). We further note Chase
failed to state a claim under the Americans With Disabilities
Act of 1990. See Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections v. Yeskey,
524 U.S. 206, 212-13 (1998). Accordingly, Chase’s claim in this
regard was without merit and we affirm in part the district
court’s order.
We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss in
part and affirm in part the district court’s order. We dispense
3
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4