Johnson v. Stafford County Circuit Court
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 09/19/2016. Copy mailed to Petitioner. (tjoh, )
p
•
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
SEP I 9 20IG
Richmond Division
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND. VA
CATC JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:15CV676-HEH
V.
STAFFORD COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Dismissing Petition for Writ of Mandamus)
Cato Johnson, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed
this civil rights action he titles "Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibitum" ("Petition," ECF
No. 1). The matter is before the Court for evaluation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)
and 19 ISA.
1.
PRELIMINARY REVIEW
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") this Court must dismiss
any action filed by a prisoner if the Court determines the action (1) "is frivolous" or (2)
"fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. The first standard includes claims based upon "'an indisputably
meritless legal theory,'" or claims where the "'factual contentions are clearly baseless."
Clay V. Yates, 809 F. Supp. 417, 427 (E.D. Va. 1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). The second standard is the familiar standard for a motion to
dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
II.
SUMMARY OF PETITION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In his Petition, Johnson states:'
1) The Circuit Court of the County of Stafford, Virginia
disproportionately sentenced me "Cato Johnson" to 19 years without
factual or legal authority.
2) All in the violation of my "Cato Johnson" United States of
America, Commonwealth of Virginia, statutory and cases of law.
3) This abridges my "Cato Johnson" Bill of Rights, federal and state.
See use, Bill of Rights, Amendments 1-9 corresponding sections of
Virginia 1-. ...
4) The primary factual allegations are (1) counsel who was not of
record, (2) lack of background information by now sentencing judge
previously, (3) racist judge, (4) impatient judge, (5) sit-in judge with
observance of rules of judicial conduct, (6) a judicial review inquiry
commission complaint against the judge neither investigated nor addressed
on the merits and, (7) long time dysfunction of the county court.
5) This plaintiff requests a full and impartial hearing with issuance
of the aforementioned writs.
6) An expedited hearing and one emergency writ at least such as
mandamus to require an appeal bond and requirement lower courts do their
responsibilities and take whatever steps necessary to resolution of these
matters.
7) Awardance and/or appointment of an attorney and fees and costs
and etc.
(Pet. 1-2.)
By Memorandum Order entered on June 17, 2016, the Court noted that "[g]iven
the content of [Johnson's Petition], it is appropriate to give Petitioner the opportunity to
pursue this action as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254."
(ECF No. 7, at 1 (citing Rivenbark v. Virginia, 305 F. App'x 144, 145 (4th Cir. 2008).)
The Court informed Johnson that if he "wishe[d] to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, he must file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the proper forms." {Id.)
' The Court utilizes the pagination assigned to Johnson's Petition by the CM/ECF docketing
system. The Court corrects the spelling and punctuation in quotations from Johnson's Petition.
2
The Court further informed Johnson, inter alia, that he could "also notify the Court that
he wishes the action to proceed as labeled." {Id. at 2.)
The Court received Johnson's response on June 30, 2016. (ECF No. 8.) Johnson
stated that he "[could] not proceed in the habeas corpus petition because [he has] yet to
exhaust all of [his] state remedies for all of [his] claims in the courts (state)." {Id.)
Johnson indicated that he "wish[ed] to proceed in this action as labeled ...." {Id.)
III.
ANALYSIS
Johnson seeks for this Court to direct the Circuit Court for Stafford County,
Virginia, to issue an "appeal bond" and resolve various deficiencies Johnson believes
affected his sentence. (Pet. 1-2.) This Court, however, lacks jurisdiction to grant
mandamus relief against state courts. See Gurley v. Superior Court ofMecklenburg Cty.,
411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969); Islam v. Va. Superior Court, No. 3:07CV418, 2007
WL 3377884, at *1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2007) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Johnson's
Petition will be dismissed.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Johnson's Petition (ECF No. 1) will be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction and as
legally frivolous. The Clerk will be directed to note the disposition of the action for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/
HENRY E. HUDSON
Date: Oc.pf
Richmond, Virginia
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?