Anderson v. Bolster, No. 1:2019cv00075 - Document 18 (E.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 3/4/2020. (See order for further details). (acha, ) Copies sent as directed in the order.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Anderson v. Bolster Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Joshua Gary Anderson, Petitioner, I:19cv75(LO/TCB) V. Mark J. Bolster, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Federal inmate Joshua Anderson seeks a writ of habeas corpus to correct perceived errors plaguing his military court-martial convictions and his subsequent appeals in the military court system. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition [Dkt. No.6] which petitioner has opposed, first through a memorandum that exceeds the page limit set by this Court's Local Rules [Dkt. No. 1IJ, and second through an unauthorized surreply [Dkt. No. 13].' This matter has therefore been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. The Court finds that petitioner is not entitled to relief as to four of the five grounds he raises but cannot conclusively determine whether or to what extent petitioner is entitled to relief as to the fifth. Accordingly, respondent's motion will be granted in part and denied in part, and the parties will be directed to file additional briefing as to two discrete issues. 'In deference to petitioner's pro se status, the Court will consider both of these documents in their entirety, except to the extent that, through them, petitioner attempts to add novel claims not raised in his petition. See U.S. ex rel. Owens v. First Kuwaiti Gen. Trading & Contracting Co., 612 F.3d 724, 731 (4th Cir. 2010)("[A] plaintiff may not raise new claims ... without amending his complaint."); Bridgeport Music. Inc. v. WM Music Corp.. 508 F.3d 394,400(6th Cir. 2007) ("To the extent [plaintiff-appellant] seeks to expand its claims to assert new theories, it may not do so in response to summary judgment...."). Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
