Jeffrey Pleasant v. Harold Clarke
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999660214-2] Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00783-REP-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Jeffrey Pleasant. [15-7258]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00783-REP-RCY)
January 19, 2016
February 5, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition
and denying his motion for reconsideration.
certificate of appealability.
The orders are not
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
When the district court denies
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When 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.
Slack, 529 U.S.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Pleasant has not made the requisite showing.
Pleasant is in
Chesterfield County, Virginia; he is not being detained pending
a City of Richmond charge dating back to 2000, contrary to his
assertions in this case.
dismiss the appeal.
Pg: 3 of 3
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
We dispense with oral argument because the
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?