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, )

Download PDF
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

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?