Pleasant v. Clarke

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 12/11/2015. Copy mailed to Petitioner. (walk, )

IL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

\Ill ~'114 2015
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND, VA

JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,
Petitioner,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:14CV804

HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jeffrey A. Pleasant, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se,
has

submitted

another

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
entered January 28,
§

2241 petition by

petition
§

2241.

2014,

for

a

writ

*l-2

Pleasant

28,

corpus

the Court dismissed a prior 28 U.S.C

Cuccinelli,

(E.D. Va. Jan.

habeas

By Memorandum Opinion and Order

challenging his

No.

2014).

622-month

u.s.c.

sentence as a successive, unauthorized 28
See Pleasant v.

of

3:12CV731,

federal

2255 motion.

§

2014 WL 353405,

at

In that Memorandum Opinion, the

Court noted that Pleasant claimed that his "state arrest for the
six {6) state felony offenses [was) never resolved .
at

*l

{citation

omitted)

{internal

quotation

The Court noted that Pleasant "represent[ed)
challenge

the

Richmond .
363-F [,

of

the

. with respect to,

original) .
to

CR00-364-F. '"

Id.

Nevertheless,

and]

"fail [ed]

decisions

the

specify

how

these

Circuit

inter alia,

Court
cases

"

marks

Id.

omitted}.

that he wishe[d)

Court

at *1 n.2

.

of

the

City

'CR00-362-F,

to
of

CROO-

(third alteration in

explained
resulted

that
in

Pleasant
a

present

restraint

upon

liberty"

his

and

his

that

submissions

demonstrated

that

indictments.

Id.

Pleasant has

inundated the Court with post-conviction motions

challenging his

2014};

v.

Pleasant

withdrawn

had

Since the dismissal of his

federal

Pleasant

~,

Commonwealth

the

convictions

Clarke,

v.

No.

Clarke,

and

§

state

those

2241 petition,

charges.

3:14CV144

Va.

Nov.

26,

3:14CV266

No.

(E.D.
(E.D.

Va.

Nov.

26,

2014) .
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered August 6, 2015, the
Court denied the instant

§

2241 Petition because

. Pleasant identifie[d] no judgment and conviction
in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond that
resulted in the present restraint on his liberty.
Instead, Pleasant continues his attack on the arrest
by Richmond police and state charges in the Circuit
Court for the City of Richmond that resulted in no
judgment or conviction in that court.
Pleasant
remains
disgruntled
that
federal
authorities
ultimately
charged
him
and
obtained
a
federal
conviction.
Any attack on his federal convictions is
successive and unauthorized.
( ECF No.
from
59(e)

5,

at 3 - 4 . }

Pleasant

a

motion

On August 24,
seeking

2015,

relief

the Court received

under

Fed.

R.

Ci v.

P.

{"Rule 59(e} Motion," ECF No. 8).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
" {1}

to

law;

(2)

to

or

( 3)

to

recognizes three grounds for relief under Rule 59 (e) :
accommodate an
account

for

correct a
Hutchinson

intervening change

new

evidence

clear error of
v.

Staton,

994

not

in controlling

available

at

trial;

law or prevent manifest
F.2d
2

1076,

1081

{4th

injustice."
Cir.

1993}

{citing Weyerhaeuser Corp.
1419

{D.

Md.

F.R.D. 625,

1991};

626

v.

Atkins

Koppers Co.,
v.

Marathon

{S.D. Miss. 1990}).

upon the third ground.

771 F.

LeTourneau

Pleasant, however,

law or that vacating that dismissal

(ECF No.

Accordingly,

8} will be denied.

1406,

Co.,

130

Pleasant apparently relies
fails to demonstrate

that the dismissal of his action rested upon a

manifest injustice.

Supp.

clear error of

is necessary to prevent a

Pleasant' s

Rule

59 {e}

Motion

The Court will deny a certificate

of appealability.
Pleasant, apparently unhappy with the unfavorable decisions
in his many cases, also has filed an \\AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS" wherein
he claims that the undersigned \\has with extreme prejudice and
bias,

refused to review the state court records or to order the

respondent

to

show cause"

and

\\has

allegations or claims made by me."
No. 8-1.}

attempted
{Aff.

to

Bias

restrict

any

11 10-11, ECF

Pleasant asks the undersigned to \\recuse himself from

this and any other action that is filed with the Court by me pro
se."

(Id.

1 18.}

However,

an

unfavorable

ruling

constitute a valid basis for a judicial bias claim.
States v. Williamson,

213 F. App'x 235,

237-38

(citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540,
has

Pleasant

demonstrated

any

fails

See United

(4th Cir.

555 {1994}}.

circumstance

to

where

2007}
Nor
the

impartiality of the undersigned might be reasonably questioned.

3

See

u.s.c.

28

§

455. 1

Accordingly,

Pleasant' s

"AFFIDAVIT OF

BIAS" (ECF No. 8-1) will be denied.
Pleasant' s
No.

will be

9)

application to proceed in
denied as moot.

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal,
request

To

the

forma pauperis
extent

he

seeks

(ECF
to

Pleasant should direct his

to the United States Court of Appeals

for

the Fourth

Circuit.
The Clerk is directed to send a

copy of

this Memorandum

Opinion to Pleasant.
It is so ORDERED.

Isl

'~

Date:
ll 1
Richmond, Virginia

1

7bcf'

Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge

The statute provides, in relevant part:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the
United
States
shall
disqualify
himself
in
any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably
be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following
circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice
concerning a
party,
or personal
knowledge of
disputed
evidentiary
facts
concerning
the
proceeding . . . .
28

u.s.c.

§

455.
4