Richardson v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 08/15/2017. (mailed copy to pro se Plaintiff) (nbrow)

re AUG Il6 20ll[E
~

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

Ir

/f_

GREGORY A. RICHARDSON,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:17CV525

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

se,

submitted

Richardson,
an

action

he

a Virginia detainee proceeding pro
labeled,

JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
Opinion

and

Order

entered

on

II

"MOTION

FOR

(ECF No. 2.)
January

8,

DECLARATORY

By Memorandum

2009,

the

Court

subjected all litigation submitted by Richardson to a prefiling
injunction.
Va.

Richardson v. Va. Dep't Corr., No. 3:07cv514

Order filed Jan.

fR)

[W

CLERK, U.S. DISTRiCT COURT
RICHMOND, VA

Plaintiff,

Gregory A.

j1'

8,

2009)

(ECF No.

49).

That

(E.D.

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) (1) (A).
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
2

of
the motion
for
leave
to
file.
If
Richardson
misrepresents any facts he will be subject to appropriate
sanctions.
Id. at 1-3.
Richardson
paragraph

4

No. 49) .

has
the

of

That

not
ORDER

failure

complied

is

entered

with
on

the

requirement

January

8,

2009

of
(ECF

important considering the rambling,
Indeed,

rather incoherence of Richardson's proffered complaint.

the proffered complaint is vague and conclusory and readily can
be

described

as

frivolous

and

Nonetheless,

delusional.

it

appears that the gravamen of Richardson's complaint is that the
state court, a named defendant, erred by granting a petition to
commit him and,

in so doing, violated at least five sections of

the United States Constitution.
This Court is without jurisdiction to review the order of
the

state

Feldman,
413

court.

460 U.S.

(1923)

District
462;

of

Columbia

Rooker v.

Court

of

Appeals

Fidelity Trust Co.,

v.

263 U.S.

Richardson's remedy lies in an appeal in the state

system.
Further,
prosecutor who,

Richardson

has

named

as

a

defendant

a

state

from the allegations of the proffered complaint,

has absolute immunity from suit because she is alleged to have
offended Richardson and his rights by prosecuting an action that
she is authorized to prosecute.

She is immune from suit under
3

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976).
other

named

vague,

defendants,

conclusory

the

terms.

proffered
The

As

complaint

allegations

are

the

to
is

stated

in

so

vague

and

file

any

conclusory as to be fanciful.
The

requirement

proffered

that

complaint

on

Richardson be

specific

forms

required
is

to

intended

to

enable

meaningful pref iling review by the Court so as to foreclose the
kind of abusive,

meritless cases that Richardson has filed many

times before.

Thus, the requirement is no technicality.

substantiated

import

and

Richardson's

failure

to

It has
do

as

instructed is a significant one.
Moreover,

Richardson has not complied with paragraph 5 (a)

of the ORDER of January 8,
is

also

of

great

import

the

foregoing

2009

(ECF No. 49).

considering

That requirement

Richardson's

litigious

history.
For
without

prejudice

so

reasons,
that

if

the

action

Richardson

will

has

a

be

dismissed

viable

claim

against the defendants other than the prosecution in the Circuit
Court of Nottoway County,
competent
rights

jurisdiction

in the

and

he
so

can pursue them in any court of
that,

he

has

state court system to appeal

the

orders, he can do so.

4

if

valid

appeal

state court's

The

Clerk

is

directed

to

send

a

copy. of

the

Memorandum

Opinion to Richardson.

/s/

~'if

Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

~AJ/51 U>l7

Richmon~,-. v!;;~nia

5