Richardson v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 5/13/2015. Copy mailed to Pro Se Petitioner. (jsmi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
GREGORY E.
RICHARDSON,
Petitioner,
V.
Civil Action No.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ^
3:15CV224
al. ,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Gregory E.
se,
has
Richardson,
Virginia prisoner proceeding pro
submitted this action under 42 U.S.C.
amassed
an
extensive
litigation.
No.
a
See
3:07CV514,
Richardson's
at
history
Richardson
1-7
litigation
(E.D.
in
v.
Va.
this
of
§ 1983.^
frivolous
Va.
Dec.
district
Dep^t
Richardson
and
abusive
of
Corr.,
9,
2008).
is
subject
Thus,
to
following pre-filing injunction;
1.
only
Absent a bona fide emergency, the Court will
one
action
at
a
time
from
process
Richardson
If
....
Richardson
action is
will
be
files
a
new
action
while
another
pending before the Court, the new action
filed
and
summarily
dismissed
without
^ The statute provides, in pertinent part:
Every person who,
under color of any statute
. . . of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person
within
the
jurisdiction
thereof
to
the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law . . . .
42 U.S.C.
§
1983.
the
prejudice.
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.
Richardson may
dismiss
a
pending
action
to
expedite
another
that he wishes the Court to consider.
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 his current custody in state
and federal
courts.
U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).
See
28
U.S.C.
§
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
compliance"
which
to
file
shall
and
in
certificate
separately
of
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
of
the
certificate.
Richardson
filing
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 believes
against
belief
the
that
defendant
such
and
facts
entitle
the
him
basis
exist.
to
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
tenable basis in fact and is not frivolous;
(d)
Contain
Richardson's
statement
a
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
for
leave
misrepresents any facts
to
file.
If
Richardson
he will be subject to appropriate
sanctions.
Richardson v.
Va.
Jan.
8,
Va.
Dep't
newest
requirements
set
Richardson
filing a
file
a
Corr.,
No.
3:07CV514,
at
1-3
(E.D.
2009).
Richardson's
the
of
failed
42 U.S.C.
civil
to
filing
forth
file
fails
in
his
to
action
§ 1983 action.
comply with
pre-filing
the
strictly
injunction.
on
the
standardized
form
To the extent he intends to
action other than pursuant
to
§
1983,
Richardson
failed to identify the statute that authorizes the action at top
of the first page of the action and succinctly explain why that
statute
is
applicable.
Accordingly,
the
action
will
be
dismissed without prejudice.
The
Clerk
is
directed
to
send
a
copy of
this
Memorandum
Opinion to Richardson.
.
/v
Date: ma* fj,
Robert E. Payne
Richmond, mrginia
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?