Richardson v. Superintendent of Piedmont Regional Jail

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 1/2/2014. (tjoh, )

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

I

E

JAN - 3 2014

Richmond Division
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICTCOURT
RICHMOND, VA

GREGORY RICHARDSON,

Petitioner,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:13CV249

SUPERINTENDENT OF PIEDMONT

REGIONAL JAIL,

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Gregory Richardson,
submitted

this

a Virginia detainee proceeding pro se,

action.

Richardson

has

amassed

history of frivolous and abusive litigation.
Va.

Dep't

2008).

of

Corr.,

Thus,

No.

3:07CV514,

Richardson's

at

an

extensive

See Richardson v.

1-7

(E.D.

Va.

Dec.

9,

in

this

district

is

litigation

subject to the following pre-filing injunction:
1.

Absent a bona fide emergency,

only

process

Richardson

If

action
will

one

be

prejudice.

at

the Court will

a

time

from

....

Richardson

is

action

files

pending
filed

a

before
and

new

the

action

Court,

summarily

while

the

another

new

dismissed

action
without

If an action is transferred or removed to

this Court while another action is currently pending
before the Court, the new action will be filed and

summarily dismissed without prejudice.
dismiss a pending action to expedite
that he wishes the Court to consider.

Richardson may
another action
Such dismissal,

however,
will
be
with
prejudice
if
a
responsive
pleading or motion has been filed.
2.
Richardson may not simultaneously litigate

multiple

challenges

to

and federal
courts.
U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).

his
See

current
28

custody

U.S.C.

§

in

state

2244(b);

28

3.
Richardson is precluded from writing on both
sides of any submission.
4.
All petitions for writs of habeas corpus and
civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be
submitted on the standardized forms,
which may be
obtained

from

the

Clerk

of

Court.

To

the

extent

that

Richardson wishes to pursue an action under some other
statute than

28

U.S.C.

§

2241,

28

U.S.C

§

2254,

or

42

U.S.C.
§ 1983,
he must identify the statute that
authorizes the action at top of the first page of the
action and succinctly explain why that statute is
applicable.
5.
In order to monitor Richardson's repetitious
and multiplicitious litigation he must attach to each
new complaint or petition a separate document entitled
"motion

for

leave

to

file

and

certificate

of

compliance"
which
shall
in
separately
number
paragraphs:
(a)
Identify
by
style,
date
filed,
and
current status,
all cases filed by him or in
which he
has
been a plaintiff
or
petitioner
within the one year period preceding the filing
of

the

certificate.

Richardson

shall

also

identify in which court the case was filed;
(b)
Certify that the claims he wishes to
present are new claims never before raised and
dismissed with prejudice by any federal court and
set forth why each claim could not have been
raised in one of his prior federal actions;
(c)
For
any
complaint,
set
forth
in
separate subparagraphs for each of the defendants
the

facts

relief
his

that

Richardson

against

belief

the

that

believes

defendant
such

entitle

and

facts

the

him to

basis

exist.

for
Each

subparagraph must,
standing alone
and without
reference to other subparagraphs,
exhibits,
or
attachments, establish that the claim against the
defendant
is
made
in good faith,
and has
a
tenable basis in fact and is not frivolous;
(d)
Contain
Richardson's
statement

under

penalty of perjury that the statements made in
the certificate of compliance are true.
6.
Richardson's failure to comply strictly with the
requirements set forth above will result in summary denial
of

the

motion

misrepresents
sanctions.

any

for

facts

leave

he

to

will

file.

be

subject

If

Richardson

to

appropriate

Richardson v.
Va.

Jan.

Va.

Dep't

of

Corr.,

No.

3:07CV514,

at

1-3

(E.D.

8, 2009).

The

United

States

District

Court

for

the

Western

District

of Virginia transferred the present action to this Court.
ECF No. 2.)

file

and

Richardson had not submitted a "motion for leave to

certificate

entered on

October

submit

"motion

a

compliance"
thereof.

of

10,

compliance."

2013,

for

within

Court

to

(15)

By

directed

file

days

Memorandum

and

of

in the dismissal

of the action.

Order

Richardson

certificate

the

warned Richardson that the

date

of

to
of

entry

failure to do so

See

Fed.

R.

Civ.

41(b).

More than fifteen (15)
the

the

leave

fifteen

The Court

would result
P.

(See

October

responded.

10,

2013

days have elapsed since the entry of

Memorandum Order

Accordingly,

and

Richardson

has

not

the action will be dismissed without

prejudice.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254

proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability
("COA") .

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

debate

whether

should

have

right."

satisfied
(or,

been

for

28

only

U.S.C.

when

that matter,

resolved

in

a

§ 2253(c)(2).

"reasonable
agree

different

This

jurists

that)

the

manner

or

could

petition
that

the

issues

presented were

proceed further.'"

^adequate to

deserve

encouragement to

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)).
Richardson fails to satisfy this standard.

Accordingly, a COA

will be denied.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion to Richardson.

Date:

fhfajjh(' *)7&>/%

RichmonoT Virginia

Robert E. Payne

Senior United States District Judge