Pleasant v. Clarke
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 11/25/2014. Copy mailed to pro se petitioner on 11/26/2014.(tjoh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
JEFFREY A.
PLEASANT,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No.
HAROLD W.
3:14CV144
CLARKE,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jeffrey A.
pro se,
Pleasant,
a former Virginia inmate proceeding
brings this 28 U.S.C. § 2254
("§ 2254 Petition").
By
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered January 28, 2014, the Court
dismissed
Pleasant's
622-month
federal
U.S.C.
§
In
that
claimed
his
omitted)
(internal
decisions
of
never
2241
a
petition
the
resolved
.
for
.
the
.
quotation marks
."
Id.
Circuit
Court
of
the
Id.
at
the
*1
Court
n.2
(third
explained
City
Court
noted
challenge the
CR00-363-F[,
Pleasant
felony
(citation
Richmond
alteration
that
*1
The
to
Pleasant
state
at
of
28, 2014).
that
(6)
"represent[e]d that he wishe[d]
the
Nevertheless,
six
28
Cuccinelli,
Jan.
noted
omitted).
with respect to, inter alia, CR00-362-F,
364-F.'"
v.
(E.D. Va.
Court
his
unauthorized
Pleasant
at *l-2
arrest
challenging
successive,
See
Opinion,
"'state
[was]
Pleasant
as
2014 WL 353405,
offenses
that
§
motion.
Memorandum
that
U.S.C
sentence
2255
No. 3:12CV731,
28
in
.
.
.
and] CR00original).
"fail[ed]
to
<£
specify how these cases resulted in a present restraint upon his
liberty"
and
Commonwealth
dismissal
Court
that
had
of
with
his
submissions
withdrawn
his
§
2241
those
indictments.
petition,
post-conviction
demonstrated
Pleasant
motions
that
the
Since
the
inundated
the
Id.
has
challenging
his
federal
convictions and state charges.
Pleasant's
instant
which judgment he
§
2254
seeks to
challenge or
pursuant to that judgment.
must
identify
Pleasant
the
states
for
and
judgment
Pleasant
of
the
conviction
identifies
that
and
"[t]he
into custody on January 24,
robberies
and
related
further provides
offenses
on
intends to
of
March
name
and
6,
also
he
fails
fails
to
his
firearms
he
demonstrate
is
is
location
in
Richmond
of
the
(§ 2254
City
[allegedly]
offenses
challenging,
2000."
(Id.)
.
.
.
Police
To
the
demonstrate
a
judgment
that
these
2.)
took
me
committing two
."
(Id.)
extent
in the Circuit Court
identify
court
Pet.
"the Circuit Court dismissed the
to
custody
and "N/A none" for both
sentence.
2000 for
challenge offenses
Richmond,
Pleasant
that
to
that he
sentence
that entered the judgment of conviction,
the
fails
Under the section where a petitioner
judgment
"N/A,"
petition
and
cases
He
alleged
Pleasant
of the City
conviction.
resulted
in
the present restraint on his liberty.
Accordingly,
the
Court
directed
by Memorandum Order entered October 15,
Pleasant
to
show
cause
within
eleven
2014,
(11)
days of the date of entry hereof as to why his § 2254 motion
should not
be
demonstrate
dismissed
that
he
for
is
failing
in
custody
to
identify
pursuant
to
a
judgment or
that
judgment.
Pleasant has responded.
In
a rambling
response,
Pleasant
contends
has ordered me to show cause instead of
is nothing in the
shows
that
I
Rule
should
nor
be
that
"the Court
the Respondent.
There
the Advisory Committee Notes which
ordered
to
show
cause
why
my
§
2254
should not
be dismissed for any reason after it is examined by
the
.
judge
corrected)
Courts,
.
.
."
(Response
2,
ECF
No.
4
(capitalization
(citing Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in U.S. District
Rule
4).)
Pleasant
those raised in his § 2254
then
repeats
arguments
similar to
Petition about being charged in the
City of Richmond courts and detained in the Richmond City Jail.
Again,
Pleasant fails to identify a judgment and conviction in
the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond that resulted in the
present restraint on his
liberty.
As such,
demonstrate
and
§
good
cause
his
2254
Pleasant
petition
fails to
will
be
dismissed.
Pleasant's
Motion
for
an
Evidentiary
Hearing
(ECF
No.
6)
will be denied.
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
right."
28
whether
should
have
(or,
issues
presented
been
for
that
resolved
were
proceed further.'"
to
matter,
in
a
agree
different
^adequate
to
that)
the
manner
or
deserve
This
satisfy
463 U.S.
this
petition
that
encouragement
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,
fails
§ 2253(c)(2).
satisfied only when "reasonable jurists could
debate
Pleasant
U.S.C.
to
484 (2000)
880, 893 & n.4
standard.
the
(1983)).
Accordingly,
a
certificate of appealability will be denied.
The
Clerk
is
directed
to
send
a
copy
of
the
Memorandum
Opinion to Pleasant.
/s/
Robert E.
Richmond, Virginia
Date: Afovetfaz*^'*
&f
Payne
Senior United States District Judge
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?