Richards v. Nuss

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/01/2015. (ccol, )

IN THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP VIRGINIA

OCT-2

Richmond Division

MARK E.

2015

CLGRK, U.S. DISTRICT C0UR1

RICHARDS,

RICHMOMn Tm

Plaintiff,
V.

Civil Action No.

3:14CV125

LISA NUSS,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mark E.

Richards,

in forma pauperis,

a

Virginia

inmate proceeding pro se

filed this 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action.

asserted he was denied due process because Lisa Nuss

and

Richards

caused him

to transmit false information about his prison employment to the
Virginia Parole Board which resulted in the denial of Richards's
release on discretionary parole in 2014.
and Order entered on May 8,

2015,

By Memorandum Opinion

the Court

rejected Richards's

action as legally and factually frivolous:
Here, the Virginia Parole Board provided Richards
with a
statement of its reasons
for denying him
parole.
Memorandum in Support of Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Attachment D, at 1, Richards v. Clarke,
3:14CV715 {E.D. Va. filed Oct. 29, 2014), ECF No. 2-1,
at 4 (as paginated by CM/ECF) .
Contrary to Richards's
allegation, the Virginia Parole Board did not deny
Richards's parole because of any false information
about his prison employment.
(Id.)
Richards was
denied parole based upon accurate information that he
was and is a poor candidate for parole.
See Richards
V.
Clarke,
(E.D.
Va.

[i

No.
3:12CV639,
2014 WL 693505,
at *1-5
Feb.
21,
2014)
(describing
Richards's

extensive criminal record and poor behavior while on
release on parole).
Because Richards has received all

of

the

fails

process

to

that

state

a

the

claim

Constitution

for

relief

for

requires,
the

he

denial

of

due process.
Moreover, Richards's assertion that he
was denied parole because of inaccurate information
about his prison employment is frivolous.
Richards

v.

Va. May 8,
The

relief

Nuss,

No.

3:14CV125,

2015

WL

2169524,

at

matter

under

is

before

Federal

the

Rule

of

Court

Civil

on

Richards's

Procedure

demand

60(b).

Procedure

make

a

threshold

or]

defense,

and

exceptional

Cas.

Auto.

Werner

v.

a

of

(citing Werner,

of

"^timeliness,

Co.,

993

731

F.2d

this

the
731

F.2d

six

Accordingly,

207

(4th

Cir.

"he

circumstances
Rule

Here,

Richards

or

that

60(b)

he

has

Motion

1993)

[or she]

Rule

Richards

a

Farm

must

[claim

Fire

&

(quoting

1984)).

of

fails

60(b)

opposing party,

State

(4th Cir.

showing,

F.2d at 207).

Richards

48

v.

specific sections

some inapplicable authority.
exceptional

46,

204,

threshold

Powell

for

A party

meritorious

unfair prejudice to the

circumstances.'"

Carbo,

satisfy one

showing

lack of

Ins.

party satisfies

denied.

(E.D.

2015).

seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil

a

*3

After

a

then must

60 (b)."

Id.

simply cites

to demonstrate any
meritorious

(ECF

No.

19)

claim.
will

be

The

Clerk

is

directed

to

send

a

copy

of

the

Memorandum

Opinion to Richards,

/s/

fltcf

Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

Richmond, Virginia