Clayburn v. Clarke, No. 3:2018cv00555 - Document 15 (E.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 12/17/2018. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff) (smej, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Clayburn v. Clarke Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MARICHEL PIERCE CLAYBURN, Petitioner, V. Civil Action No. 3:18CV555 HAROLD W.CLARKE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 petition. By Memorandum Order entered on September 21,2018,the Court directed Petitioner, within eleven(11) days of the date of entry thereof, to pay the $5.00 filing fee or explain any special circumstances that would warrant excusing payment ofthe filing fee. More than eleven (11) days elapsed after the entry of the September 21, 2018 Memorandum Order and Petitioner had not responded. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on October 25,2018, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) On November 19, 2018, the Court received a Motion for Reconsideration from Petitioner. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). (ECF No. 13.) In his Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner explains that a friend of his, Latika M. Watts, submitted a $5.00 money order on his behalf in response to the September 21, 2018 Memorandum Order. (Id. at 1.) The Court had received the $5.00 money order from Ms. Watts on October 5, 2018. However,the money order was not accompanied by any explanation as to what case it was to be applied. Because it appears that Petitioner complied with the Court's September 21,2018 Memorandum Order, the October 25, Dockets.Justia.com 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order(EOF Nos. 9, 10) will be VACATED. The Court will CONTINUE TO PROCESS the action. An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion. M. Hannal United StatefeTJistrict Judge Date: DEC 1 7 2018 Richmond, Virginia
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
