Mitchell v. Clarke, No. 1:2012cv00945 - Document 14 (E.D. Va. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re: Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and Petitioner's Motion for Discovery. Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 04/11/13. (pmil)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR [rJHEEASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Vernon Mitchell, Petitioner, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) v. Harold Clarke, Respondent. RK, us d:st-\ ;i Al E ¢ if ¢-. l:12cv945(TSE/TRJ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Vernon Mitchell, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on grounds that the Virginia Parole Board (VPB) violated his due process right by engaging in improper practices. Petitioner names Harold Clarke, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, as respondent in this action. As relief, petitioner requests a writ of habeas corpus, ordering VPB and respondent immediately to release petitioner on parole. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, and petitioner has responded and filed a Motion for Discovery. Thus, thematter is now ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, respondent's motion must be denied as to petitioner's first claim and granted as to petitioner's second and third claims. I. Background Petitioner currently is incarcerated at Greensville Correctional Center ("GCC") and is serving a life sentence. On orabout May 3, 2011, VPB interviewed petitioner for discretionary parole. By letter dated May 13, 2011, the VPB informed petitioner of its decision not to grant parole and stated, "[a]fter a review and evaluation of all available information pertaining to your case, the [VPB's] decision on May 10, 2010 is not to grant your parole for the reason(s) listed below." The letter cites "history of violence," the serious nature and circumstances of the underlying offense, '-crimes committed," and "risk to the community." ourt /1RGFN1A

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.