Richardson v. Virginia State Department Of Corrections

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See OPINION for complete details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/25/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR(f:J
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGIN?-A

J:= I

Riclunond Division

OCT 2 5 2817

;.I

J

GREGORY A. RICHARDSON,

CLERK, U.S. DISTthCT COURT
RICHMOND VA

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:17CV101

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Gregory A.
se,

Richardson,

a

Virginia detainee proceeding pro

has submitted a motion he labeled

No. 11}

wherein

he

challenges

\\Motion to Vacate"
Court's

the

{ECF
2017

{ECF No.

Memorandum Opinion and Order.

May

9-10.}

26,

By Memorandum

Opinion and Order entered on May 26, 2017, the Court construed a
prior \\Motion to Vacate" from Richardson as a Motion pursuant to
Rule 59 (e}

{\\Rule 59 (e}

Motion I") .

(ECF No.

9,

at 3.)

The

Court denied Richardson's Rule 59(e) Motion I because it failed
to

qualify

59 {e) .

for

{Id.

Opinion

and

relief

at

4.)

Order

under

Federal

Further,

notified

the

Rule
May

Richardson

of

Civil

26 ,

that

2O1 7
if

he

Procedure
Memorandum
wished

challenge the prefiling injunction issued against him,
file

his

challenge

No. 3:07cv514.
In his
the May 26,

in

Richardson

v.

Va.

Dep ' t

to

he must
Corr. ,

{Id.)

present

\\Motion to Vacate, "

Richardson challenges

2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order because the Court

construed his prior Motion to Vacate "solely as a Motion under
Rule 59."

(ECF No. 11, at

1.)

1

(Id.)

prefiling injunction.

Richardson also complains of the
The Court construes Richardson's

current "Motion to Vacate" as a request for relief from the May
26 ,

2o1 7 Memorandum Opinion and Order,

and as

such,

motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 (e)

a

second

(\\Rule 59 (e)

Motion II").
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
account

an

for

correct a

intervening change

new

evidence

clear error of

Hutchinson

v.

Staton,

(D.

F.R.D.

Md.

625,

1991);
626

relies upon the

F.2d
v.

Atkins

(S.D.

available

at

trial;

law or prevent manifest

994

(citing Weyerhaeuser Corp.
1419

not

in controlling

Miss.

1076,

1081

Marathon

1990)).

third ground.

Cir.

1993)

Supp.

1406,

LeTourneau
Richardson

Richardson,

demonstrate that construing his prior

(4th

771 F.

Koppers Co.,
v.

injustice."

however,

Co.,

130

apparently
fails

\\Motion to Vacate"

to

as a

Motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) was a clear error of law, or that
vacating the denial of his Rule 59 (e) Motion I is necessary to
prevent

a

manifest

injustice.

Accordingly,

1

Richardson's Rule

The Court corrects the capitalization in the quotations from
Richardson's submissions.
2

S9 (e}

Motion II

(ECF No.

11}

will be denied.

The Court will

deny a certificate of appealability.
Richardson also seeks

recusal

of

the

undersigned because

the Court issued a prefiling injunction against him,
deems improper.
bias

against

(ECF No.

Richardson

12,
nor

at 2-4.)
does

which he

The Court harbors no

Richardson

demonstrate

any

circumstances where the impartiality of the undersigned might be
reasonably questioned.
S40, SSS (1994)

See Liteky v.

SlO U.S.

(holding that unfavorable judicial rulings alone

do not constitute bias) .
Recusal

United States,

Accordingly,

Richardson's Motion for

(ECF No. 12) will be denied. Richardson is again advised

.that should he wish to challenge the prefiling injunction,

he

must do so in Richardson v. Va. Dep•t Corr., No. 3:07cvS14.
The

Clerk

is

directed

to

send a

copy of

the Memorandum

Opinion to Richardson.

/s/
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Date:
t!/c,%~ ~},~tf
Richmond, Virginia

3