Richardson v. Virginia State Department Of Corrections

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 5/26/2017. Memorandum Opinion was mailed to Plaintiff. (sbea, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA MAY 2 6 2017 Richmond Division RK, U.S. DISTRICT COURl RICHMOND VA GREGORY A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:17CV101 v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Gregory A. Richardson, a Virginia detainee proceeding pro se submitted an action he labeled, No. 1.) "MOTION TO VACATE." {ECF By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on January 8, 2009, the Court subjected all litigation submitted by Richardson to a prefiling No. 3:07cv514 injunction. {E.D. Va. Richardson Order filed v. Jan. Va. 8, Dep't Corr., 2009). injunction provides: 1. Absent a bona fide emergency, the Court will only process one action at a time from Richardson . . . . If Richardson files a new action while another action is pending before the Court, the new action will be filed and summarily dismissed without prejudice. If an action is transferred or removed to this Court while another action is currently pending before the Court, the new action will be filed and summarily dismissed without prejudice. Richardson may dismiss a pending action to expedite another action that he wishes the Court to consider. Such dismissal, however, will be with prejudice if a responsive pleading or motion has been filed. 2. Richardson may not simultaneously litigate multiple challenges to his current custody in state and federal courts. See 28 U.S. C. § 2244 {b); 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b) {l) (A). That 3. Richardson is precluded from writing on both sides of any submission. 4. All petitions for writs of habeas corpus and civil rights actions under 42 U.S. C. § 1983 must be submitted on the standardized forms, which may be obtained from the Clerk of Court. To the extent that Richardson wishes to pursue an action under some other statute than 28 u.s.c. § 2241, 28 U.S.C § 2254, or 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must identify the statute that authorizes the action at top of the first page of the action and succinctly explain why that statute is applicable. 5. In order to monitor Richardson's repetitious and multiplicitious litigation he must attach to each new complaint or petition a separate document entitled "motion for leave to file and certificate of compliance" which shall in separately number paragraphs: (a) Identify by style, date filed, and current status, all cases filed by him or in which he has been a plaintiff or petitioner within the one year period preceding the filing of the certificate. Richardson shall also identify in which court the case was filed; (b) Certify that the claims he wishes to present are new claims never before raised and dismissed with prejudice by any federal court and set forth why each claim could not have been raised in one of his prior federal actions; (c) For any complaint, set forth in separate subparagraphs for each of the defendants the facts that Richardson believes entitle him to relief against the defendant and the basis for his belief that such facts exist. Each subparagraph must, standing alone and without reference to other subparagraphs, exhibits, or attachments, establish that the claim against the defendant is made in good faith, and has a tenable basis in fact and is not frivolous; (d) Contain Richardson's statement under penalty of perjury that the statements made in the certificate of compliance are true. 6. Richardson's failure to comply strictly with the requirements set forth above will result in summary denial of the motion for leave to file. If Richardson 2 misrepresents any facts he will be subject to appropriate sanctions. Id. at 1-3. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered On 2017 the Court dismissed the February 16, action without prejudice because Richardson's Motion to Vacate Richardson's failed to comply with the terms of the injunction. 1 Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. On March 2, Richardson wherein 2017, he the Court challenged received the a dismissal motion of his from action which the Court construes as a motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 (e) See MLC Auto., (4th Cir. 2008) Cir. 1978))). LLC v. (2) Town of s. Pines, ti ECF No. 4). 532 F. 3d 269, (citing Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 277-78 809 (4th The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recognizes "(1) ("Rule 59 (e) Motion, three grounds for relief under Rule to accommodate an intervening change 59 (e) : in controlling law; to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. ti Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. F.2d v. 1076, 1081 Koppers Co., 1 771 (4th Cir. 1993) F. Supp. 1406, For example, Richardson wrote on both sides of his submission, he failed to identify the statute that authorizes the action at top of the first page of the action and succinctly explain why that statute is applicable, and failed to file a motion for leave to file and certificate of compliance. 3 1419 (D. F . R. D . Md. 625 I 1991); Atkins v. Marathon ( s . D . Miss . 19 9 0) ) . 62 6 LeTourneau about injunction. the issuance 130 Richardson's motion fails to satisfy any of the foregoing grounds for relief. complains Co., the of Instead, he original pref iling Any challenge to the prefiling injunction must be filed Richardson v. Va. Dep't Corr., No. 3:07cv514. Accordingly, Richardson's Rule 59 (e) Motion the Mandate will be denied. (ECF No. 5) (ECF No. 4) and Motion to Stay The Court will deny a certificate of appealability. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Richardson. /s/ /2. £f Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge 7Jn Date: 4" L-~ Richmond, ~rginia 1 7ot1 4

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?