Pleasant v. Clarke, No. 3:2014cv00144 - Document 7 (E.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 11/25/2014. Copy mailed to pro se petitioner on 11/26/2014.(tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pleasant v. Clarke Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. HAROLD W. 3:14CV144 CLARKE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Jeffrey A. pro se, Pleasant, a former Virginia inmate proceeding brings this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition"). By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered January 28, 2014, the Court dismissed Pleasant's 622-month federal U.S.C. § In that claimed his omitted) (internal decisions of never 2241 a petition the resolved . for . the . quotation marks ." Id. Nevertheless, Id. Circuit Court of the at the *1 Court n.2 (third explained City Court noted challenge the CR00-363-F[, Pleasant felony (citation Richmond alteration that *1 The to Pleasant state at of 28, 2014). that (6) omitted). with respect to, inter alia, CR00-362-F, 364-F.'" six Cuccinelli, Jan. noted "represent[e]d that he wishe[d] the 28 v. (E.D. Va. Court his unauthorized Pleasant at *l-2 arrest challenging successive, See Opinion, "'state [was] Pleasant as 2014 WL 353405, offenses that § motion. Memorandum that U.S.C sentence 2255 No. 3:12CV731, 28 in . . . and] CR00original). "fail[ed] to Dockets.Justia.com <£ specify how these cases resulted in a present restraint upon his liberty" and Commonwealth dismissal Court that had of with his submissions withdrawn his § 2241 those indictments. petition, post-conviction demonstrated Pleasant motions that the Since the inundated the Id. has challenging his federal convictions and state charges. Pleasant's instant which judgment he § 2254 seeks to challenge or pursuant to that judgment. must identify Pleasant the states for and judgment Pleasant of the conviction identifies that and "[t]he into custody on January 24, robberies and related further provides offenses on intends to of March name and 6, also he fails fails to his firearms he demonstrate is is location in Richmond of the (§ 2254 City [allegedly] offenses challenging, 2000." (Id.) . . . Police To the demonstrate a judgment that these 2.) took me committing two ." (Id.) extent in the Circuit Court identify court Pet. "the Circuit Court dismissed the to custody and "N/A none" for both sentence. 2000 for challenge offenses Richmond, Pleasant that to that he sentence that entered the judgment of conviction, the fails Under the section where a petitioner judgment "N/A," petition and cases He alleged Pleasant of the City conviction. resulted in the present restraint on his liberty. Accordingly, the Court directed by Memorandum Order entered October 15, Pleasant to show cause within eleven 2014, (11) days of the date of entry hereof as to why his § 2254 motion should not be demonstrate dismissed that he for is failing in custody to identify pursuant to a judgment or that judgment. Pleasant has responded. In a rambling response, Pleasant contends has ordered me to show cause instead of is nothing in the shows that I Rule should nor be that "the Court the Respondent. There the Advisory Committee Notes which ordered to show cause why my § 2254 should not be dismissed for any reason after it is examined by the . judge corrected) Courts, . . ." (Response 2, ECF No. 4 (capitalization (citing Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in U.S. District Rule 4).) Pleasant those raised in his § 2254 then repeats arguments similar to Petition about being charged in the City of Richmond courts and detained in the Richmond City Jail. Again, Pleasant fails to identify a judgment and conviction in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond that resulted in the present restraint on his liberty. As such, demonstrate and § good cause his 2254 Pleasant petition fails to will be dismissed. Pleasant's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 6) will be denied. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA will not issue unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional requirement is right." 28 whether should have (or, issues presented been for that resolved were proceed further.'" to matter, in a agree different ^adequate to that) the manner or deserve This satisfy 463 U.S. this petition that encouragement Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, fails § 2253(c)(2). satisfied only when "reasonable jurists could debate Pleasant U.S.C. to 484 (2000) 880, 893 & n.4 standard. the (1983)). Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will be denied. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Pleasant. /s/ Robert E. Richmond, Virginia Date: Afovetfaz*^'* &f Payne Senior United States District Judge
]]>
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.
