Sirleaf v. Pearson et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Please READ for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 06/08/2017. Copy mailed to Petitioner. (ccol, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

L E

Richmond Division

m

MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, JR.,

N
-82017 ili'

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Petitioner,

^

V.

RinHMOND.VA

Civil Action No. 3:17CV250

EDDIE PEARSON,

R:^

a/:,

Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner, a Virginia prisoner proceedingpro se, submitted a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) It is unclear what judgment Petitioner

intends to challenge in his submissions. Petitioner indicates on the standardized form that he was

convicted and sentenced by the Circuit Court in Alexandria, Virginia and many of his claims
clearly arise from that conviction. (§ 2241 Pet. 2; see ECF No. 1-1, at 1-18.) However,
Petitioner also indicates that there is currently a "Removal Proceedings Detainer," against him

(§ 2241 Pet. 2-3), even though Petitioner is serving a sentence in the Virginia Department of
Corrections and does not identify any removal proceedings underway. (Id. at 1-2.)
By Memorandum Order entered on April 27,2017, the Court informed Petitioner that
because he appears to be challenging his state convictions, he must file a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 3.) The Court also stated that if Petitioner

instead wished to proceed by a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241, he must specifically identify
why the Court has jurisdiction under § 2241. (Id.) The Court warned Petitioner that he may not
challenge any possibility of or impending deportation by a § 2241 petition. (Id. at 3); see FloresTorres v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 708, 710-11 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that federal district court

does not havejurisdiction over a habeas petition seekingto challenge a removal order).
Accordingly, the Court directed Petitioner, within eleven (11) days ofthe date of entry thereof, to

complete and return either the standardized form for filing a § 2241 petitionor a § 2254petition
as required by Eastern District of Virginia Local Civil Rule 83.4(A). The Court warned
Petitioner that the failure to comply with the above directive would result in the dismissal ofthe
action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Instead of following the directive of the Court, Petitioner filed a "MOTION OF NON

CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE" ("Motion," ECF No. 4) wherein he asks the Court to

'Xiphoid the Law and Plaintiffs right to non consentto Magistrate Judge Roderick C. Young's
exercising jurisdiction in said case." {Id at 1.) In the Richmond Division of the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Magistrate Judges handle non-dispositive

matters in prisonercases. The Courtneed not obtainPetitioner's consent for the Magistrate
Judge to handle such matters. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion (ECF No. 4) will be DENIED.
More than eleven (11) days have elapsed since the entry of the April 27,2017

Memorandum Order and Petitioner has not complied with the Court's directives. Accordingly,
the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

M. Hannah:

iUM 08 201^
Richmond, Virginia

United States District Judge