Petit v. Clarke

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roderick C. Young on 04/27/2016. Clerk mailed copy to pro se Petitioner. (nbrow)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
ALLAN THOMAS PETIT,

lL
APR 2 8 2016
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND, VA

Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:15CV309

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Allan Thomas Petit, a Virginia state prisoner proceedingpro se, brings this petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. 1). Petitioners who seek habeas relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 are limited to challenging the judgment of a single state court. See Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 2(e). "A petitioner who seeks
relief from judgments of more than one state court must file a separate petition covering the
judgment or judgments of each court." Id. In the present action, Petit sought to challenge
separate judgments from the General District Court of the City of Virginia Beach and the Circuit
Court of the City of Virginia Beach (hereinafter, "Circuit Court"). Accordingly, by
Memorandum Order entered on December 1, 2015, the Court informed Petit that the Court
would not consider any challenges to the General District Court Judgment in the present action.
The Court explained that Petit remained free to pursue any challenges to that judgment in his
other then-pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, Petit v. Clarke, 3:15CV308 (E.D. Va. filed May
21, 2015), which specifically challenged the General District Court Judgment.
The Court further directed Petit, within fifteen (15) days of the date of entry thereof, to
file an amended § 2254 petition for the present action limited solely to claims that challenge the

Circuit Court's Judgment. The Court warned Petit that the failure to complete and return the
form in a timely manner would result in dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(b).
More than fifteen days (15) elapsed after the entry of the December 1, 2015
Memorandum Order, and Petit failed to file an amended § 2254 petition or otherwise respond.
Accordingly, by Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF Nos. 17, 18) entered on December 21,
2015, the action was dismissed without prejudice.
On December 23, 2015 and December 31, 2015, the Court received Petit's Motions for
Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Additionally, on December
23, 2015, the Court received Petit's Amended§ 2254 Petition. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recognizes three grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): "(1) to
accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not
available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson

v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., 771
F. Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991); Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626
(S.D. Miss. 1990)).
Here, Petit represents that he did not receive the Court's December 1, 2015 Memorandum
Order until December 15, 2015. (ECF No. 20, at 1.) Petit represents that he mailed the
Amended§ 2254 Petition (ECF No. 19) to the Court six (6) days later. (ECF No. 21, at 2.)
Given that Petit promptly complied with the December 1, 2015 Memorandum Order upon
receiving the same, it appears manifestly unjust to dismiss the action where his belated response
is largely attributable to circumstances beyond his control. See Hutchinson, 994 F .2d at 1081
(citations omitted). Accordingly, the Motions for Reconsideration (ECF Nos. 20, 21) will be
GRANTED. The December 21, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order will be VACATED.

2

Within thirty (30) days of the date of entry hereof, Respondent SHALL FILE his
response to Petit's Amended§ 2254 Petition.
An appropriate Order shall issue.

Isl
Roderick C. Young
United States Magistrate
Date: April t..1-, 2016
Richmond, Virginia

3