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, )

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