Church v. Director, Virginia Department of Corrections et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 09/22/2016. Clerk mailed copy to pro se Petitioner. (nbrow)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
WILLIAM L.A. CHURCH,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPT.,
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
~
~
IL
SEP 2 2 ?818
Civil Action No. 3:15CV320-HEH
William L.A. Church, a Virginia inmate currently confined in Oklahoma, filed this
28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition("§ 2241 Petition," ECF No. 6). 1 Church is serving
consecutive sentences of twenty-five years and life for his convictions of sodomy and
rape in the Circuit Court of Amelia County, Virginia. See Church v. Okla. Corr'! Indus.,
No.CIV-10-1111-R,2011 WL4376222,at*l (W.D.Okla.Aug.15,2011). Inhis
petition, Church claimed to challenge the execution of his sentence, the validity of his
conviction, and "identity theft! Illegally detained! I am not the person tried, convicted or
That statute provides, in pertinent part:
(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless(1) He is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or
is committed for trial before some court thereof; or
(2) He is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of
Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the
United States; or
(3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States ....
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(l)-(3).
~
~JLERK.-U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND, VA
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Denying Motion for Reconsideration)
1
fE
sentenced in Virginia." (§ 2241Pet.2.)2 By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered
on March 16, 2016, the Court denied the § 2241 Petition and dismissed the action as yet
another frivolous attempt to challenge his conviction and confinement. (ECF Nos. 11,
12.)
On March 28, 2016, the Court received from Church a "Motion for a 30 day
Extension to File Objections." (ECF No. 13.) On March 31, 2016, Church filed a
document entitled "Objections and Motion to Reconsider" (ECF Nos. 14) and a "Motion
for Permission to Submit: The Exhibits, Affidavit, Documentation, and a Brief ...."
("Motion for Permission," ECF No. 15.) The Court construes Church's "Objections and
Motion to Reconsider" as a motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) because it was filed within twenty-eight days of the March 16, 2016 Memorandum
Opinion and Order. See MLC Auto., LLC v. Town ofS. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th
Cir. 2008) (citing Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978)).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized 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)). Although Church fails to identify on what ground he seeks relief, he
apparently argues that Rule 59(e) relief should be granted to correct an error of law or to
The Court corrects the capitalization, spelling, and punctuation, and removes the emphasis from
quotations from Church's submissions.
2
2
prevent manifest injustice. Church "objects to this Court['s] ... prefixed, premade
decisions and beliefs creating a bias and prejudice closing the doors of justice in my face
equating to a miscarriage of justice." (Objs. & Mot. Reconsider 2.) Church then recites
the Court's conclusions that he cannot challenge his conditions of confinement by way of
habeas, and any attempt to challenge his conviction and sentence is an unauthorized and
successive habeas petition. Church vaguely asserts that "habeas 28 USC 2241 is the
proper remedy." (Id. at 3.) Church then provides a lengthy list of issues he believes that
he can raise in habeas and should be allowed to challenge here. (Id. at 3-7.)
Despite Church's apparent belief that he has been wronged, he fails to identify any
clear error oflaw or any other basis for granting Rule 59(e) relief. Accordingly,
Church's "Objections and Motion to Reconsider" (ECF Nos. 14) will be denied. The
Court fails to discern, and Church fails to demonstrate any need to submit exhibits in this
closed action. Accordingly, Church's Motion for Permission (ECF No. 15) will be
denied. Church's "Motion for a 30 day Extension to File Objections" (ECF No. 13) will
be denied as moot.
Church also asks the Court, in the alternative, to permit him to proceed with this
action as one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Church remains free to file a new 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action in this Court. The Court will process a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
from Church provided that it raises only a challenge to the conditions of his confinement.
An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Isl
Henry E. Hudson
United States District Judge
S'f:t.
Date:
2.2. 2.0I'
Richmono, Virgfnia
3
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?