Pleasant v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al
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.
3:14CV266
CLARKE,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jeffrey
pro
se,
A.
Pleasant,
brings this
a
former Virginia
28 U.S.C.
§ 2254
inmate
("§ 2254
proceeding
Petition").
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered January 28, 2014,
dismissed
Pleasant's
622-month
federal
U.S.C.
§
3:12CV731,
In
that
claimed
that
his
omitted)
(internal
of
never
the
resolved
.
Court
for
.
the
.
marks
Circuit
Court
inter alia,
364-F.'"
at
Id.
the
*1
Court
n.2
of
."
v.
Va.
six
the
(third
City
Court
felony
noted
challenge the
CR00-363-F[,
Pleasant
2014).
(citation
Richmond
alteration
that
*1
The
to
28
Pleasant
state
at
of
28,
that
(6)
Id.
his
Cuccinelli,
Jan.
noted
wishe[d]
CR00-362-F,
explained
unauthorized
omitted).
"represent[e]d that he
the
(E.D.
the Court
challenging
Pleasant
at *l-2
arrest
quotation
petition
successive,
See
with respect to,
Nevertheless,
2241
a
Opinion,
"state
[was]
decisions
as
2014 WL 353405,
Memorandum
Pleasant
§
motion.
offenses
that
U.S.C
sentence
2255
No.
28
By
in
and]
.
CR00-
original).
"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withdrawn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
identify
Pleasant
the
states
fails
to
seeks to challenge or that he
pursuant to that judgment.
must
petition
is
in custody
Under the section where a petitioner
judgment
"N/A,"
demonstrate
for
and
the
sentence
name
and
he
is
location
challenging,
of
the
court
that entered the judgment of conviction, and "N/A none" for both
the
judgment of
Pleasant
conviction and his
identifies
that
"[t]he
sentence.
Richmond
into custody on January 24, 2000 for
robberies
and
related
further provides
offenses
intends
of
on
to
March
6,
also
he
fails
fails
to
City
[allegedly]
offenses
.
.
.
Pet.
Police
2.)
took
me
committing two
."
(Id.)
He
"the Circuit Court dismissed the alleged
2000."
challenge offenses
Richmond,
Pleasant
that
firearms
(§ 2254
to
(Id.)
in
To
the
extent
the Circuit Court
identify
demonstrate
a
judgment
that
these
and
cases
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 for
that
he
is
failing to
in
identify a judgment or
custody pursuant
to
that
judgment.
Pleasant has responded.
In a rambling response,
Pleasant contends that "the Court
has ordered me to show cause instead of the Respondent.
There
is nothing in the Rule nor the Advisory Committee Notes which
shows
that
I
should
be
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
demonstrate
good
on
his
cause
liberty.
As
and
§
his
such,
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."
satisfied
debate
whether
(or,
should
have
issues
presented
been
for
were
that
to
U.S.C.
when
"reasonable
matter,
in
a
§ 2253(c)(2).
agree
different
'adequate
to
that)
the
manner
or
deserve
Estelle,
satisfy
463 U.S.
this
880,
This
jurists
could
petition
that
encouragement
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
(quoting Barefoot v.
fails
only
resolved
proceed further.'"
Pleasant
28
to
484 (2000)
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:
Ml&Ufo 2 tOtf
fee
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?