Richardson v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/13/2017. Copy mailed to plaintiff. (tjoh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

OCX 16

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

CLERK. U S DISTRICT COURT
PICi-iMOrcD. VA

GREGORY RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.

V.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

3:17CV607

et al. ,

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Gregory Richardson,
submitted

amassed

this

an

a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se,

action under

extensive

litigation.

See

No. 3:07CV514,

ECF

28

U.S.C.

history

49,

at

2254.

Richardson has

of

frivolous

v.

Richardson
No.

§

Va.

1-7

and

Dep't

(E.D.

Va.

abusive

of

Dec.

Corr.,

9,

2008).

Thus, Richardson's litigation in this district is subject to the
following pre-filing injunction:
1.

Absent a bona fide emergency,

only

process

Richardson

If

is
be

files

pending before
filed

prejudice.

action

at

a

time

from

....

Richardson

action
will

one

the Court will

and

a

new

the

action

Court,

summarily

while

the

another

new action

dismissed

without

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.
dismiss a pending action to expedite
that he wishes the Court to consider.

however,

will

be

with

prejudice

Richardson may
another action
Such dismissal,

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.
S^ 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

compliance"

to

which

file

shall

and

in

certificate

separately

of

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

relief
his

that Richardson believes

against

belief

subparagraph

the

defendant

that

such

must,

standing

entitle him to

and

facts

the

basis

exist.

alone

for
Each

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

penalty of

perjury

that

the

statements

under

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

misrepresents any facts
sanctions.

leave

to

file.

he will be subject

If

Richardson

to appropriate

Richardson v.
1-3

Va.

(E.D. Va. Jan.

Dep't of Corr.,
8,

Richardson's

requirements

set

No.

3:07CV514,

and

newest

forth

filing

fails

to

in the pre-filing

certificate

of

compliance."

comply

such

to

an

file

the

action.

action on

the

Accordingly,

at

the

First,

"motion for leave to
Second,

standardized

the

with

injunction.

invokes the Court's jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C.
failed

49,

2009).

Richardson's action is not accompanied by a
file

ECF No.

action

although

§ 1983,
form

will

be

for

he

he has
filing

dismissed

without prejudice.
The

Clerk

is

directed

to

send

a

copy

of

this

Memorandum

Date:

Robert E.

/s/
Payne

Richmond, Virginia

Senior United States District Judge

Opinion to Richardson.
It is

so ORDERED.