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, )

Download PDF
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

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?